It's pretty silly to argue that riding a bike to work is a hobby. It's just a different kind of transportation. You could use the same argument to outlaw cars, after all, you can take the bus or ride a (motor)cycle. It's not a necessity for most people to drive a car to work. After all, a car will slow traffic by design, while several (motor)cycles can ride side by side. Busses are also far more space efficient.
So why are you driving? Because you like it much better than the alternative? Sounds like a hobby to me.
PS. Cycling is a standard form of transport in many Asian and some European countries.
I'm from the Netherlands where cycling is much more common than in the US. IMO there are two key elements to safe cycling in my country: 1. Building roads with cyclists in mind. 2. Both cyclists and drivers need to know/be taught some basic rules.
From a cycling standpoint, roads come in two flavors. High speed (over 30 mph) and low speed (below 30 mph). Low speed roads allow for mixed traffic. Preferably there are markings on the side of the road to indicate a 'cyclist zone'. This is the minimum space to allow for a single cyclist while passing. Cyclists should stick to the side of the road, with no more than 2 cyclists side by side. When a car approaches, those cyclists should change to a single file if there is not enough room for you to pass otherwise. You should wait for them to do this. Also, no passing when another car is approaching on the other side of the road, since there won't be enough room and you'll push the cyclist off the road. Cyclists can pass stopped or slow cars to the right and it's the drivers responsibility to check before turning/moving sideways (you should be checking for pedestrians anyway). Cyclists should take care to avoid staying in the cars' blindspot, especially for trucks. These are major killers over here (which is why I never wait next to a truck and rarely pass them).
High speed roads are simply to dangerous for cyclists. They require a seperation between the road and the cyclists (at least a low barrier). Driving in the middle of the road makes most sense when there is no barrier, but cyclists should preferably not be using these roads.
This works very well over here, although it's obviously not something that can easily be applied to countries without a cycling culture/infrastructure.
10-15 MPH is not unreasonable for a bicycle
Strong headwind can reduce the speed a lot. Also, women and older people have less power than young men. Please remember that you are sitting on your butt softly pushing a little pedal, while they have to provide their own power;)
Wag-of-the-finger to the douchebags who think that their bicycles give them the right to ignore traffic rules (and make things dangerous for the rest of us): learn to ride.
They are probably just endangering themselves. Don't forget that a car is a 2000+ lbs hunk of steel, so they can't really hurt you, but you can hurt them. Perhaps they can make you hurt yourself, so you should focus on defensive driving. Personally, I prefer a bad cyclist over a bad 'chauffeur' any day of the week. The latter can actually kill me.
Re:hmmmm. as long as your are offering advice
on
The SUV Is Dethroned
·
· Score: 1
Modern cars don't crumple into passengers. They have a very strong core and crumple around that. So the impact site is torn to pieces, but the passenger appartment is mostly intact (although some panels can shift). A common safety feature is to use bars to transfer energy to other parts of the car. For instance if you are hit in the front left, the bar will also make the front right of your car crumple, dissipating much more energy. Another trick is make heavy solid parts like the engine move out of the way, usually under the floor board. That reduces the impact on the passenger appartment.
Here is a video where they crashed a Renault Modus (mini MPV) into an old Volvo 940 (big, heavy station wagon). The passengers in the old car would have been severely wounded, while there would have been only minor injuries in the new, much smaller and lighter car.
The crumble really makes sense for head-ons, but I prefer strength on the side.
A proper crumple zone will not reduce the safety from side impacts, but improve it. By using bars in the side of the car, you can transfer a lot of energy from the incoming car to the front and back of the car. The crumple zones there will slow the car down. The only downside to a crumple zone is that damage to cars is much more severe nowaways. That's the price to pay for more safety.
Every time I turn around they keep changing what exactly what "lower class" is....
You are just arguing into space. The grandparent didn't say he wanted to give money to stupid people like your brother in-law. Obviously you don't want to pay taxes so you adopted the popular upper (middle) class feel-good ideology of: - There are no real poor anymore, people in trouble have themselves to blame because they: live above their means, are lazy, use drugs, etc. - Everyone has the same potential, contacts, health and luck as I. - Everyone can be a millionaire when they are no longer poor and save half of their (100k?) income.
I especially liked that you combined 'get educated' and 'live within your means' in the same sentence. Getting more education would mean going in debt for most poor people in the US.
Being poor means no food, no house, no tranportation, no future.
Nice strawman. By your definition only dead people are poor. It's also completely at odds with your suggestion to get educated and promoted (how does that work with 'no future' and 'no transportation'?).
The government does not act with contempt towards the common man, unless you live in the UK/Europe then boy are you fucked (taxes/prices)
Actually, we are not fucked in Europe, because more people live within their means than in the US. It's also far more difficult to get shafted by poor health, because our health care tends to cover everyone. Besides, our taxes/prices aren't actually that outrageous if you consider the services rendered. Don't forget that the US' loans are increasing, so US citizens aren't actually paying for everything the government does. Your government is like your brother in-law, taking on big loans to overspend. Your taxes are artificially low. Personally, I consider that contempt.
If that is your belief than lobby for the outright banning of smoking.
I have no problem with people smoking outdoors or in smoking rooms at work. As long as they do not harm me, smokers can do what they want (just like other recreational drug users and addicts).
Either something is legal or not
Law simply can't be reduced to black and white. The rights, needs and desires of different people always need to be weighed carefully. For instance, driving is a fairly dangerous activity, but the benefit is great, so we allow it. Still, it isn't just legal for everyone; driving licenses are mandatory and require a certain age, physical and mental ability and knowledge of the rules of the road.
But please explain to me how banning a legal substance on private property is "about giving people freedom"?
A workplace and/or restaurant isn't the same as a home. For instance, restaurants must allow health inspectors in. 'We' do not consider market forces sufficient to prevent people from being hurt/killed by filthy restaurants. Another example are building codes. The lack of them (or enforcement) resulted in tragedy in China, after many shoddy schools collapsed during the big earthquake.
A workplace that allows smoking everywhere is a workplace that discriminates against non-smokers. It should not be a requirement for a worker (including a waiter) to tolerate smoke, just like many other dangerous situations are illegal in the workplace. There are plenty of older people who have work-related diseases, because they had very dangerous jobs before regulation. Fortunately that is much less common now in first world countries. In contrast, Chinese factories in free market zones are treating their workers very badly, who will surely suffer the consequences. I don't feel bad that employers do not have the same freedoms in our societies.
And enjoy your favorite bars and restaurants now while they are still open.
I will probably enjoy them a lot more when smoking is banned.
Because at least 2 of my favorite bars closed after the smoking ban due to big drops in business. Do some research - after smoking bans pass, for a brief time business goes up, then settles back down to a rate less than pre-ban. Because when bars are forced to cater to the wishes of non-regulars at the cost of regular patrons, their business suffers.
I suspect that plenty of businesses will survive (they survived a big drop after taking advantage of the Euro introduction to raise their prices). It's the job of an entrepeneur to deal with these kinds of changes and preferably profit from them (by creating a smoking room or other niceties for smokers). Societies that protect their businesses from adversity tend to stagnate. I believe that when society chooses to progress, businesses should adapt.
It is about the majority imposing it's will on the minority.
The reality of the situation is that the minority was imposing their will on the majority. I never saw an advert for a non-smoking workplace or had the option to go to a non-smoking restaurant (for work-related dining I could not even choose the restaurant). Despite the smoking industry's campaigns to 'work it out together', smokers rarely asked before they lit up. So basically the only two options not to be forced into smoking along were/are to live as a hermit or to become the annoying 'policeman'.
Seemingly, strict rules are necessary before most smokers will behave themselves.
Can someone tell me how banning things is a "liberal" attitude?
So you suggest abolishing all laws? Are you sure you're not going to be upset when 'liberal' gangs roam the street, pillaging and murdering freely?
Liberalism is not anarchy, it's about giving people freedom, as long as that freedom is not abused to harm others. The problem I have with smokers is that the large majority do abuse that freedom unless there is strict regulation. They simply do not concern themselves with my health or my desire to not be continuously irritated in places where I interact with others (like the workplace).
If 90% of the smokers were considerate to non-smokers, there would be no need for regulation. Unfortunately, the addiction seems to turn many smokers into assholes (even when they are otherwise friendly people). Legislation has forced smokers to be considerate in the workplace. Soon, a new Dutch law forces them to be considerate in bars and restaurants. I can't wait.
see, contracts have to be voluntarily entered by all parties
That's just nonsense. In every society, children enter into a 'contract' with their parents upon birth, who can make many decisions for the children until they are adult. Similarly, those parents enter into a social contract with society how they may treat their children. It's just an anarchist/libertarian fantasy that people are completely free to choose the rules they will obey and may ignore all others. I don't think we want incestious parents to get off free just because they don't accept the rules of society, for example.
Even for those of us happy to "sign", the social contract is being changed unilaterally, which with normal contracts is something that is almost never permitted.
It's not unilateral in a democracy, where the people (including you) decide the contents of the contract. You can try to opt out completely by emigrating to some remote piece of land without any inhabitants and giving up all contact with others. Most of us do want to live in an advanced society and prefer to use democracy to shape society into something they can live with.
Muslim troops were using Srebrenica as a base to attack Serbs (including civilians). This was an important reason for the Serbs to attack Srebrenica. The Serbs might never have attacked if the Muslim troops had not abused the safe zone.
The Muslim troops fled before the Serb attack, abandoning the civilian troops. The Dutch did not flee.
Srebrenica is a valley between several hills that were under control by the Serbs. That means that it is completely undefendable from a military standpoint. The only possible deterrent was causing heavy Serb casualties using air support, which was not approved by the UN.
It has always been considered sensible and honorable among career soldiers to negiotiate a surrender instead of fighting a hopeless battle. The Dutch did exactly that, trying to save as many people as possible.
And most importantly: I have never heard an argument to explain how a suicide battle would have helped the civilians in Srebrenica, instead of angering the Serbs and possibly making them murder all civilians. In my experience, critics seem most interested in proclaiming their own moral superiority, claiming that they would have heroically fought to the death while sitting behing their computer at home.
PS. In the military medals are given for these reasons:
Valor, to recognize the heroism/bravery of the soldier/unit.
Special qualifications, to recognize the ability of the soldier to handle certain weapons or tools effectively.
Experience, to recognize that the soldier has been at a certain theater of war or had a certain experience (like the purple heart, for being wounded).
The Srebrenica medal was the latter kind and merely signifies that the soldiers served in Srebrenica.
I think Europe is so scarred from the World Wars that anything that smacks of a risk of a war terrifies them.
That's one way of looking at it. I prefer another viewpoint: the US hasn't had a war on their own soil for so long that they forgot what war means for those afflicted. Tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians have died every year since the beginning of the war in Iraq, several times the death count of 9/11, which was a great trauma for the US. Is it so hard to understand what several 9/11's a year does to a country?
Everyone in Europe, especially Germany, has a family member that was killed on the Eastern Front.
No. That is only true for Russians and Germans. But there was a lot more suffering during WW II than 'just' what happened on the eastern front.
They have had enough war to last for generations and they see us as fools for seemingly seeking it out.
During both World Wars the American homeland was safe and it was the soldiers that really paid the price. But even though there were quite a few casualties, the soldiers were on the offensive and winning most of the time. That is an immense morale boost. Pacifism really made inroads in Europe during WW I when the Americans weren't yet involved and the trench warfare was just grinding up men, without any progress for both sides. During WW II, the support for war in Germany was very high early on, when the Germans were celebrating victory after victory. It was the latter part of the war that drove the point home that war is hell.
Except that other countries would want to forcibly acquire said economy, which moots your point totally.
You fail. Badly.
The parent allowed for a healthy supply of nuclear weapons. I strongly doubt that countries like China are willing to be nuked for a chance to conquer the US and having to deal with the inevitable guerilla war that follows. It's much easier & more profitable for China to trade and buy a part of the US economy with the trade surplus. However, you both miss the main reason for the big army, which is to make sure that foreign resources continue to be sold to the US. In other words, the army is used to protect countries like Saudi Arabia and to make sure that friendly goverments remain in charge. The downside of this imperialist strategy is that the US is drawn into many conflicts and makes many enemies. It's also bad PR, since the US is known for supporting (murderous) dictators as long as they serve US interests.
The real discussion is whether this can and/or should be achieved in a different way.
PS. You deserved to be modded flamebait for the 'You fail'. Make your point and let it speak for itself.
Of course you can argue whether this qualifies as apartheid, but it is hard to deny the inequality between Jews and Arabs in Israel.
It has no more to do with apartheid than the boundary fences on the borders of most countries
This argument would only be valid if: 1. Israel recognized the right of Palestinians to have a state and would allow 'nation-building'. 2. The wall would have been build on the Green line, instead of cutting through Palestinian land.
only it is more justified since Israel is under constant terrorist attack
Please look up the number of Israeli citizens killed versus the number of Palestinians citizens killed. Then tell me who is being terrorized.
If Israel were interested in apartheid, it would not have allowed hundreds of thousands of Arabs to become citizens and to live all over the country
And yet there are millions of refugees who have not been allowed back by Israel and whose property has been confiscated. In contrast, Jews with no claim other than their bloodline are allowed to immigrate into Israel.
The problem is that you are not working for the employees, you are a slave to the rules. The DBA was telling you that the rules won't work for him since he can't remember all those passwords, but you just blew him off. So why would he care about your rationalization, since you obviously don't care enough to help him with his problem? I fully expect the guy to tape a sticky with his passwords to his monitor, which will actually create a far worse security situation than to have passwords that do not expire. I'm sure you would blame him for it, ignoring the fact that the rules combined with your unhelpful attitude are driving him to do this, just so he can actually get his work done. IMO, at that point you have failed your job to really implement company policy/system limitations/SOX compliance/network constraints/security policy. You just pretend you have.
This is how you could also have handled it: You: Hey DBA, my boss came up with a new policy: monthly changing passwords DBA: Hey Scott, I can't remember a dozen monthly changing passwords You: I understand, here is a password storage program/keychain so you will only have to remember one password instead of a dozen. I'll send a mail to everyone else too, so they can use the same thing. DBA: Thanks Scott, you are great.
The differences between the imaginary you and the real one is that the imaginary you:
cares about both the needs of the managers/accountants/policy makers and the employees (instead of just placing the burden on the employees to make the policy work). He will try to find solutions to problems the employees (will) have and will advocate employee friendly solutions.
saves the company a lot of money by allowing employees to work rather than to each have to come up with solutions to deal with (or subvert) company policy.
takes responsibility for actually implementing policy (also called professionalism), rather than pretending.
Sys admins/accountants/other support personnel who work like this (even if they do not get support from management) will get my respect. However, those who don't and stifle me with their poorly thought out policies will be scorned.
You are not getting it. The work the military is doing in Iraq is not a good benchmark, because you will have to leave again. Then the Iraqi people will need to be able to cure their own sick, keep their economy going and be able to live in peace. The real benchmark is how well they are doing at that. 15 (or 1500) children with eye injuries cured by US military doctors is not a success. Zero children cured by US doctors and thousands cured by Iraqi doctors is a success. The same goes for security. Policing done by US soldiers indicates failure, Iraq needs a good Iraqi police force who can secure their own people. Iraq needs to be able to build/maintain its schools, hospitals, and bridges itself. And finally, a hundred people dying per day is a clear indication of failure. I don't know whether you consider that normal, but I consider that absolutely horrifying.
A good solution for this might be to turn the system around. The patent office should do only a cursory check for similar patents and focus mostly on the quality of the patent (no prior art check at all). Then anyone should be able to challenge a patent easily by submitting prior art or previous patent with a fee of about 100 dollars. The patent office checks whether the challenge is valid. If it is, the patent is revoked and the challenger gets his fee back, with an added bonus to be paid by the (former) patent holder (say, 500 dollars). The patent office can add their own fee, also to be paid by the (former) patent holder.
The advantages are:
Patents will be cheaper and faster to obtain (less work to approve a patent)
Good patents are cheap and filing bad patents will be costly
Patent challenges are much less costly since no court challenge is necessary (normally, it should still be an option). They can even be profitable if a good percentage of the challenges are accepted (some people might even make it their job).
The people at the patent office do not feel the need to obstruct a challenge. In the current system, a succesful challenge means that they failed their job, which bruises their ego. When prior art and extensive patent searches are no longer their job, this will go away.
But how many societies would react with anything other than rage after the attack suffered by the Amish at that schoolhouse? Few, if any, I'd say.
That is not my perception. There have been school shootings and other gross acts of violence in Europe (where I'm from), which have more often than not been greeted with mourning and a desire to understand, rather than rage. Even the case of serial child rapist and murderer Dutroux in Belgium, where many mistakes were made by the police, was greeted with peaceful protests (to demand reform) instead of violent outrage. We also have a program in my country where a victim and a perpetrator can meet each other. This is often liberating for the victim, who can ask the perp for his reasons (which is usually very helpful in allowing the victim to give the crime a place) and who can explain to the perp how much hurt he caused, which they often underestimate (so the criminal starts to realize how much damage he has done). Programs like these are in my opinion a more practical way to deal with the fallout of serious crimes; they actually address the needs of both the victim and the perp. In contrast, I see the Amish's focus on forgiveness as a more theoretical exercise. Especially when the forgiveness is required by (community) law, you can wonder what good it actually does. I do see value in it, but only if it is granted freely, where both victim and the perp can see eye to eye.
We accept that the nature of man is what it is. And what it is, is sinful.
That sentence is at the core of where our beliefs systems are at odds. If you look at the basic traits that (normal) humans have, then each of those has value, even those that are often seen as negatives. Sexual desire is needed for reproduction. Fear protects us from avoidable threats. Anger allows us to communicate our essential needs ("I will not accept that you endanger my life, by doing...") and overcome fear so we can meet a threatening situation that cannot be solved by fleeing or posturing. A desire to punish allows us to preserve our social order by punishing destructive behavior. Selfishness allows us to restrain our efforts to manageable levels where we don't try to solve the world's problems. These traits are often balanced out by other tendencies. Love makes us commit to a partner and care for our children (the result of sexual desire). Empathy allow us to try and overcome threats for others (overcoming our fear), since we do not like to see others suffer. It also helps to resolve conflict, by trying to understand our opponent. By punishing those who do not obey the rules of the group, we are able to trust our fellow humans to a greater extent, which allows us to have an advanced society. I could go on and on.
The key to being a good person, is IMO to have the proper balance between these traits. A well-educated, mentally stable person is not inherently sinful (although he may still make mistakes and commit wrongs). I believe that the challenge lies in helping people to find this balance. This balance also depends on our environment and technological abilities, so historical dogma's have no place there. For instance, condoms allow people to safely act on their sexual desire. Before they were widely available, premarital abstinence was a good idea to prevent problems such as single mothers who cannot take care of their children or unhappy marriages. It was flawed, since quite a few people did have sex before marriage (which resulted in other weak solutions, such as forced marriages and having young girls marry), but there was no better choice. Condoms allow for a more mature solution, where unmarried people can act on their sexual desire in a sensible and responsible way, without having to repress it.
Christianity isn't in the business of creating better humans (though that's a nice side effect that *should* be universal and is actively encouraged); we're in the business of seeking forgiveness
Now, I'm not pointing out these things to attack the Amish
Yeah you are.
No, I'm attacking the perception that Amish forgiveness is key to an utopian society with spiritual enlightment and no violence (which was pretty much what the parent, grandparent and overgrandparent to my post were saying). Pointing out great injustices in their community is a pretty weak attack given that those can be found in any society. Attacking the Amish way of life on the whole would require actually making the point that their society is worse than others, which may or may not be true, but afaik there is no good research to argue that objectively.
However, it is quite clear that Amish forgiveness, which some see as the ultimate adherence to Christian faith, is unable to deal with some kinds of violence and actually increases suffering for some (especially the victims).
But the point of the OP was not that the Amish are so perfect, but that most other "Christians" are raving hypocrites.
Actually, the point of the OP was indeed that the Amish are so much better than regular Christians on this issue and that the strict adherence provides 'inner peace' and 'principled, spirit-based skills'. If you read the links I provided, I think you'll see (physical) punishment and medieval herb remedies, rather than these qualities.
...but that most other "Christians" are raving hypocrites. They preach love and forgiveness, but absolutely refuse to practice it in their daily lives. They support the military, police, prisons, etc. Most of them even watch and practice violence (eveything from action movies, to football, to cockfighting) as entertainment.
I don't believe in unlimited love and forgiveness, because it results in problems such as those the Amish have. I don't care about doctrines or strict adherence to a belief, I care about results. I'm against the military when it is used to bring suffering, such as in Iraq, but not when it is used for peace keeping. I'm in favor of a well-disciplined police force that serves the people, but not of police officers who behave like criminals themselves. I would like to see prisons replaced by something that is more effective at removing criminal tendencies from people, but a well-managed prison and rehabilitation system is better than forgiving criminals, so they can make more victims. I much prefer that people manage their violent/aggressive tendencies in the safest way possible, rather than deny that they are human and pretending that those tendencies won't find a (more) damaging outlet.
So I don't agree with your belief that someone is a hypocrite when he preaches love and forgiveness, but watches violent movies (for example). IMHO the greatest failing in many Christians is they refuse to accept basic human traits and attempt to suppress them, which will not result in better humans, but in sinners. The real challenge is finding a practical framework in which people can be happy without hurting others, not a theoretical one.
Their system works well for them and illustrates what Christianity *should* be. I don't mean the physical trappings, the dress, the low-tech, the separation. I mean the state of the spirit and how adherence to spiritual principles provides certain guidance even when the bad old world busts in and murders your family members.
The Amish might be very Christian in their forgiveness, but there is also a downside to it. Victims of crimes have to deal with little punishment for the perpetrators of crimes, who only have to repent and are then shunned for a while (usually some weeks). This is especially painful when the perpetrator keeps committing the same crimes over and over again (and is forgiven again and again). An example is the Mary Byler incest and physical abuse case:
The unconditional forgiveness is not necessarily granted by Amish victims out of their hearts, the church and community requires them to do so (they will be punished if they do not). In many ways this is similar to the restrictive environment in the 50's, where victims of domestic abuse were often encouraged, if not required, to simply accept it. In contrast, there are now mandatory arrest laws in many states where arrests have to be made when the police finds it likely that domestic violence has occurred, to give a victim some breathing room to decide freely how to deal with the abuser.
This is also an interesting story, explaining how Amish victims are often not granted the same rights as regular Americans:
Now, I'm not pointing out these things to attack the Amish, but more to illustrate that a perceived utopia of virtue and spiritual enlightment always has it downsides. Every community, culture and religion has it's strengths and weaknesses. Usually, a strength is also a weakness.
BTW. The 'informed decision' to join the Amish is debatable. Rumspringa rarely introduces the Amish youth to a 'regular' life. The rules are simply not enforced that harshly, but the Amish parents are supposed to keep a strict eye on them. The 'rebelling' usually limits itself to materialistic and shallow rule breaking, such as wearing 'English' clothes, drinking and listening to music. Given the limited education the Amish receive, both of their religion and 'worldly matters', they cannot really make an informed choice. Also, choosing to leave the Amish often means that the youngsters are seperated from their family and friends (sometimes this is enforced by the Amish through shunning). It is a very tall order for someone to seperate himself from those who he loves, even if he doesn't agree with the Amish rules.
That doesn't have to be true. There are programming constructs that are just wrong, no matter what the interactions are. If a static analysis tool finds such a problem you always have to fix it, since there is no justification for it. An example:
if (str==null && str.equals("")) { show an error }
This code crashes when str is null, since the equals method will be incorrectly called on a null object. There are two possible fixes: 1. If you know str can never be null, remove the null check. 2. Otherwise, change && into ||. This is the correct fix if str can actually become null.
Aside from the detectors that are 100% right, there are also those that have very low false positive rates. If you only use these kinds of detectors for analysis, you can compile a list with very few bogus bugs. For instance, we use static bug analysis in the build process of our web application (for a national telecom company). The build fails if the static analyser finds a problem. With a tuned set of detectors, almost all failures are the result of bad code and only very seldomly will a detector be turned off for a certain line of code because it was a false positive.
"Free" health care that means waiting endless amounts of time for routine surgeries.
Capitalist and socialist healthcare both have to deal with inbalances in supply and demand. The problem with healthcare is that there is relatively little elasticity in both. When you have a medical issue, you usually want treatment, if not now, then later. So demand can only be temporarily reduced by having people wait and permanently by denying treatment (or by having people die after waiting too long). The supply is fairly rigid since the number of doctors is often the limitation.
Capitalist healthcare solves these problems by simply denying poor people treatment and secondly by making poor people wait longer before they go to a doctor (an invisible waiting list). Socialist healthcare solves these problems by creating a visible waiting list. This means that there is no discrimination based on income and that the inbalance of supply vs. demand is felt by everyone. Obviously, capitalist healthcare is more pleasant to richer people, who can afford to 'cut ahead' of poorer people (and never feel their pain). On the other hand, in socialist healthcare everyone's health is valued equally. You can also very clearly see the supply/demand situation and by creating sufficient long-term supply (which means regular overcapacity), you can reduce waiting list to the minimum.
Of course, another consequence of capitalist healthcare is that healthcare providers will cater mostly to the rich. A lot of doctors will specialize in beauty treatments and other less needed treatments (where the money is). This means that there are fewer doctors for regular treatments, increasing the prices. The end-result is very expensive healthcare, probably more expensive than well-funded socialist healthcare (with small/non-existing waiting lists).
What gives? Why so down on lots of time off and 35 hour working week?
It really comes down to freedom. Most people in the US don't believe in the government coming in and telling everyone how to run their business.
Being forced to work 50+ hours a week doesn't sound like freedom. Believe it or not, you can still work long hours in Europe if you want; you just can't force employees to do so. If you call that freedom, I think you could also use that word for slavery and child labor.
Sure, there are people who desire the government to establish the "right to slack", but most reasonable people see that it's a bad long-term policy
Working 35-40 hours a week is not slacking, just like a sprinter is not a slacker when compared to a marathon runner. Few people can work effectively on demanding jobs for more than 35-40 hours a week anyway. More hours tend to be spend on personal matters or on fixing mistakes you made because of the long hours. As a lead developer, I want my programmers to create maintainable, correct code, not large quantities of crappy code. Since a large part of the cost is maintainance, doing it properly the first time pays off immensely.
Well, you could get a new one from Apple and swap them out. Assuming they have sensible connectors, it would be a snap. A liquid pump would surely be strongly integrated with the rest of the system. It has to have a liquid-tight connection to the tubes which are used to transport the liquid and that connection would be hard to break to prevent people from pulling the tubes loose. That means that it is probably difficult to remove the pump. Removing the pump could also result in liquid getting out, so you would have to be very careful. Then, while keeping the liquid in, you would have to connect the new pump. I assume that that this a hard repair even for a technician. And hard repairs mean $$$.
Components with moving parts are notoriously unreliable (pumps, fans and hard disks), so this could be an big additional risk.
That worries me. What happens if the pump fails? Hopefully, the fans will compensate and you will be alerted. However, even then you are looking at a very costly repair. Wouldn't it be possible to use a heat pipe? Does anyone know why Apple didn't choose one? They used convectional cooling for the Cube, so I assume that they looked into it.
By Java code, I obviously meant the source code which makes up Java. That includes both C and Java code.
One issue is open sourcing the Runtime Enviornment source code which is java code, the other issue is opening the Virtual Machine which is not.
So? What is the issue? I wasn't aware that C code was somehow different under copyright. Clearly someone must have understood what you meant to say, since you got a +1 insightful, but since I seem to be dumb, can you spell out what the issue is here exactly?
Perl is actually dual-licensed under both the Artistic and the GPL, as stated here.
Indeed, but the Artistic license is dominant because it is the most lenient*. In fact, I don't even understand why they bother, because the artistic license is GPL-compatible. Obviously, releasing Java under a GPL-compatible BSD-like license (like I advocate), would effectively also allow anyone to license the code under the GPL (if you so desire).
*People who don't want to abide by the GPL can simply choose to use the Artistic license. So the Free aspects of the GPL license don't have any strength.
How can you generalize over an entire standardized language what its licenses are?
I know it's a bit dubious. I tried to pick the initial open source implementation or the most popular implementation. Obviously, proprietary implementations don't count as they aren't open source. This is not about open source vs closed software.
MIT Scheme is GPL alone.
I found this when I searched for "scheme license" in google. After some searching, it seems they changed their license just after this version (in 2001) to the GPL. Obviously, this makes everything very unclear. It would be very interesting to know how their usage and contributions changed after they changed their license, though. Since you seem to be a big Scheme fan, do you know whether MIT Scheme became more or less popular after 2001?
And this list doesn't even include Bigloo, Chicken, Guache, Gambit, Guile, SCM, Pika, SCSH, and about a dozen others.
Obviously, I can't include every language, especially the ones that I don't even know. Also, comparisons with other languages of reasonable size is more prudent. What does it tell us if we discover that a little used language implementation is GPLed? Could it be little used because it is GPLed? The reverse is not true though. If we discover that an implementation for an often used language is GPLed, then we can conclude that those languages weren't held back by the GPL. However, my quick scan showed that BSD-like licenses are more popular. Not that I am claiming to have made a perfect comparison (but hey, this is slashdot;) ).
No it doesn't -- they can add exceptions for code that can't be GPL'd to the license.
Modifying the license would make it incompatible with the GPL, which would be incredibly stupid, because then you couldn't link with GPLed code anymore. If you want to grant more rights than the GPL, you could dual license it, but not allowing users to 'Freely' use linked code is an extra limitation. In other words, such a license would be incompatible with the GPL. So there is no solution, except to choose another license or to rewrite the code.
The shitstorms are because Die-Hard Linux geeks/distros want to have everything on their computer/CDs under the GPL.
I don't believe you. Do those distros ship without Perl and Apache, which are both not GPL licensed?
IF they release it under the GPL, I see this making the open-source world a lot friendlier to Java.
Open-source != Free. A significant group of people prefers a BSD-like license over the GPL. A GPL-compatible BSD-like license will be usable by both GPL and non-GPL programmers. Most programming language implementations do not use the GPL, and that is probably for a good reason:
Furthermore, the GPL may be a serious problem for Sun. Not all Java code is necessarily copyrighted by them. They might have licensed some code from others. With a BSD-like license, they can just keep those parts with their original license. A GPLed Java would require relicensing, which Sun cannot do. Another problem may be patents. Sun owns quite a few Java-related patents and the GPL requires them to give everyone a free license to those patents. That would allow MS to use those patents in their software and even to build another evil Java clone, but then, Sun wouldn't be able to do anything about it. Another patent problem may be that third party patents cannot be used in GPLed software (even though Sun can license it). So Sun might not be able to include some functionality in a GPLed Java.
Slashdot Mirror
It's pretty silly to argue that riding a bike to work is a hobby. It's just a different kind of transportation. You could use the same argument to outlaw cars, after all, you can take the bus or ride a (motor)cycle. It's not a necessity for most people to drive a car to work. After all, a car will slow traffic by design, while several (motor)cycles can ride side by side. Busses are also far more space efficient.
So why are you driving? Because you like it much better than the alternative? Sounds like a hobby to me.
PS. Cycling is a standard form of transport in many Asian and some European countries.
I'm from the Netherlands where cycling is much more common than in the US. IMO there are two key elements to safe cycling in my country:
;)
1. Building roads with cyclists in mind.
2. Both cyclists and drivers need to know/be taught some basic rules.
From a cycling standpoint, roads come in two flavors. High speed (over 30 mph) and low speed (below 30 mph). Low speed roads allow for mixed traffic. Preferably there are markings on the side of the road to indicate a 'cyclist zone'. This is the minimum space to allow for a single cyclist while passing. Cyclists should stick to the side of the road, with no more than 2 cyclists side by side. When a car approaches, those cyclists should change to a single file if there is not enough room for you to pass otherwise. You should wait for them to do this. Also, no passing when another car is approaching on the other side of the road, since there won't be enough room and you'll push the cyclist off the road. Cyclists can pass stopped or slow cars to the right and it's the drivers responsibility to check before turning/moving sideways (you should be checking for pedestrians anyway). Cyclists should take care to avoid staying in the cars' blindspot, especially for trucks. These are major killers over here (which is why I never wait next to a truck and rarely pass them).
High speed roads are simply to dangerous for cyclists. They require a seperation between the road and the cyclists (at least a low barrier). Driving in the middle of the road makes most sense when there is no barrier, but cyclists should preferably not be using these roads.
This works very well over here, although it's obviously not something that can easily be applied to countries without a cycling culture/infrastructure.
10-15 MPH is not unreasonable for a bicycle
Strong headwind can reduce the speed a lot. Also, women and older people have less power than young men. Please remember that you are sitting on your butt softly pushing a little pedal, while they have to provide their own power
Wag-of-the-finger to the douchebags who think that their bicycles give them the right to ignore traffic rules (and make things dangerous for the rest of us): learn to ride.
They are probably just endangering themselves. Don't forget that a car is a 2000+ lbs hunk of steel, so they can't really hurt you, but you can hurt them. Perhaps they can make you hurt yourself, so you should focus on defensive driving. Personally, I prefer a bad cyclist over a bad 'chauffeur' any day of the week. The latter can actually kill me.
Modern cars don't crumple into passengers. They have a very strong core and crumple around that. So the impact site is torn to pieces, but the passenger appartment is mostly intact (although some panels can shift). A common safety feature is to use bars to transfer energy to other parts of the car. For instance if you are hit in the front left, the bar will also make the front right of your car crumple, dissipating much more energy. Another trick is make heavy solid parts like the engine move out of the way, usually under the floor board. That reduces the impact on the passenger appartment.
Here is a video where they crashed a Renault Modus (mini MPV) into an old Volvo 940 (big, heavy station wagon). The passengers in the old car would have been severely wounded, while there would have been only minor injuries in the new, much smaller and lighter car.
The crumble really makes sense for head-ons, but I prefer strength on the side.
A proper crumple zone will not reduce the safety from side impacts, but improve it. By using bars in the side of the car, you can transfer a lot of energy from the incoming car to the front and back of the car. The crumple zones there will slow the car down. The only downside to a crumple zone is that damage to cars is much more severe nowaways. That's the price to pay for more safety.
Every time I turn around they keep changing what exactly what "lower class" is. ...
You are just arguing into space. The grandparent didn't say he wanted to give money to stupid people like your brother in-law. Obviously you don't want to pay taxes so you adopted the popular upper (middle) class feel-good ideology of:
- There are no real poor anymore, people in trouble have themselves to blame because they: live above their means, are lazy, use drugs, etc.
- Everyone has the same potential, contacts, health and luck as I.
- Everyone can be a millionaire when they are no longer poor and save half of their (100k?) income.
I especially liked that you combined 'get educated' and 'live within your means' in the same sentence. Getting more education would mean going in debt for most poor people in the US.
Being poor means no food, no house, no tranportation, no future.
Nice strawman. By your definition only dead people are poor. It's also completely at odds with your suggestion to get educated and promoted (how does that work with 'no future' and 'no transportation'?).
The government does not act with contempt towards the common man, unless you live in the UK/Europe then boy are you fucked (taxes/prices)
Actually, we are not fucked in Europe, because more people live within their means than in the US. It's also far more difficult to get shafted by poor health, because our health care tends to cover everyone. Besides, our taxes/prices aren't actually that outrageous if you consider the services rendered. Don't forget that the US' loans are increasing, so US citizens aren't actually paying for everything the government does. Your government is like your brother in-law, taking on big loans to overspend. Your taxes are artificially low. Personally, I consider that contempt.
If that is your belief than lobby for the outright banning of smoking.
I have no problem with people smoking outdoors or in smoking rooms at work. As long as they do not harm me, smokers can do what they want (just like other recreational drug users and addicts).
Either something is legal or not
Law simply can't be reduced to black and white. The rights, needs and desires of different people always need to be weighed carefully. For instance, driving is a fairly dangerous activity, but the benefit is great, so we allow it. Still, it isn't just legal for everyone; driving licenses are mandatory and require a certain age, physical and mental ability and knowledge of the rules of the road.
But please explain to me how banning a legal substance on private property is "about giving people freedom"?
A workplace and/or restaurant isn't the same as a home. For instance, restaurants must allow health inspectors in. 'We' do not consider market forces sufficient to prevent people from being hurt/killed by filthy restaurants. Another example are building codes. The lack of them (or enforcement) resulted in tragedy in China, after many shoddy schools collapsed during the big earthquake.
A workplace that allows smoking everywhere is a workplace that discriminates against non-smokers. It should not be a requirement for a worker (including a waiter) to tolerate smoke, just like many other dangerous situations are illegal in the workplace. There are plenty of older people who have work-related diseases, because they had very dangerous jobs before regulation. Fortunately that is much less common now in first world countries. In contrast, Chinese factories in free market zones are treating their workers very badly, who will surely suffer the consequences. I don't feel bad that employers do not have the same freedoms in our societies.
And enjoy your favorite bars and restaurants now while they are still open.
I will probably enjoy them a lot more when smoking is banned.
Because at least 2 of my favorite bars closed after the smoking ban due to big drops in business. Do some research - after smoking bans pass, for a brief time business goes up, then settles back down to a rate less than pre-ban. Because when bars are forced to cater to the wishes of non-regulars at the cost of regular patrons, their business suffers.
I suspect that plenty of businesses will survive (they survived a big drop after taking advantage of the Euro introduction to raise their prices). It's the job of an entrepeneur to deal with these kinds of changes and preferably profit from them (by creating a smoking room or other niceties for smokers). Societies that protect their businesses from adversity tend to stagnate. I believe that when society chooses to progress, businesses should adapt.
It is about the majority imposing it's will on the minority.
The reality of the situation is that the minority was imposing their will on the majority. I never saw an advert for a non-smoking workplace or had the option to go to a non-smoking restaurant (for work-related dining I could not even choose the restaurant). Despite the smoking industry's campaigns to 'work it out together', smokers rarely asked before they lit up. So basically the only two options not to be forced into smoking along were/are to live as a hermit or to become the annoying 'policeman'.
Seemingly, strict rules are necessary before most smokers will behave themselves.
Can someone tell me how banning things is a "liberal" attitude?
So you suggest abolishing all laws? Are you sure you're not going to be upset when 'liberal' gangs roam the street, pillaging and murdering freely?
Liberalism is not anarchy, it's about giving people freedom, as long as that freedom is not abused to harm others. The problem I have with smokers is that the large majority do abuse that freedom unless there is strict regulation. They simply do not concern themselves with my health or my desire to not be continuously irritated in places where I interact with others (like the workplace).
If 90% of the smokers were considerate to non-smokers, there would be no need for regulation. Unfortunately, the addiction seems to turn many smokers into assholes (even when they are otherwise friendly people). Legislation has forced smokers to be considerate in the workplace. Soon, a new Dutch law forces them to be considerate in bars and restaurants. I can't wait.
see, contracts have to be voluntarily entered by all parties
That's just nonsense. In every society, children enter into a 'contract' with their parents upon birth, who can make many decisions for the children until they are adult. Similarly, those parents enter into a social contract with society how they may treat their children. It's just an anarchist/libertarian fantasy that people are completely free to choose the rules they will obey and may ignore all others. I don't think we want incestious parents to get off free just because they don't accept the rules of society, for example.
Even for those of us happy to "sign", the social contract is being changed unilaterally, which with normal contracts is something that is almost never permitted.
It's not unilateral in a democracy, where the people (including you) decide the contents of the contract. You can try to opt out completely by emigrating to some remote piece of land without any inhabitants and giving up all contact with others. Most of us do want to live in an advanced society and prefer to use democracy to shape society into something they can live with.
- Muslim troops were using Srebrenica as a base to attack Serbs (including civilians). This was an important reason for the Serbs to attack Srebrenica. The Serbs might never have attacked if the Muslim troops had not abused the safe zone.
- The Muslim troops fled before the Serb attack, abandoning the civilian troops. The Dutch did not flee.
- Srebrenica is a valley between several hills that were under control by the Serbs. That means that it is completely undefendable from a military standpoint. The only possible deterrent was causing heavy Serb casualties using air support, which was not approved by the UN.
- It has always been considered sensible and honorable among career soldiers to negiotiate a surrender instead of fighting a hopeless battle. The Dutch did exactly that, trying to save as many people as possible.
- And most importantly: I have never heard an argument to explain how a suicide battle would have helped the civilians in Srebrenica, instead of angering the Serbs and possibly making them murder all civilians. In my experience, critics seem most interested in proclaiming their own moral superiority, claiming that they would have heroically fought to the death while sitting behing their computer at home.
PS. In the military medals are given for these reasons:- Valor, to recognize the heroism/bravery of the soldier/unit.
- Special qualifications, to recognize the ability of the soldier to handle certain weapons or tools effectively.
- Experience, to recognize that the soldier has been at a certain theater of war or had a certain experience (like the purple heart, for being wounded).
The Srebrenica medal was the latter kind and merely signifies that the soldiers served in Srebrenica.I think Europe is so scarred from the World Wars that anything that smacks of a risk of a war terrifies them.
That's one way of looking at it. I prefer another viewpoint: the US hasn't had a war on their own soil for so long that they forgot what war means for those afflicted. Tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians have died every year since the beginning of the war in Iraq, several times the death count of 9/11, which was a great trauma for the US. Is it so hard to understand what several 9/11's a year does to a country?
Everyone in Europe, especially Germany, has a family member that was killed on the Eastern Front.
No. That is only true for Russians and Germans. But there was a lot more suffering during WW II than 'just' what happened on the eastern front.
They have had enough war to last for generations and they see us as fools for seemingly seeking it out.
During both World Wars the American homeland was safe and it was the soldiers that really paid the price. But even though there were quite a few casualties, the soldiers were on the offensive and winning most of the time. That is an immense morale boost. Pacifism really made inroads in Europe during WW I when the Americans weren't yet involved and the trench warfare was just grinding up men, without any progress for both sides. During WW II, the support for war in Germany was very high early on, when the Germans were celebrating victory after victory. It was the latter part of the war that drove the point home that war is hell.
Except that other countries would want to forcibly acquire said economy, which moots your point totally.
You fail. Badly.
The parent allowed for a healthy supply of nuclear weapons. I strongly doubt that countries like China are willing to be nuked for a chance to conquer the US and having to deal with the inevitable guerilla war that follows. It's much easier & more profitable for China to trade and buy a part of the US economy with the trade surplus. However, you both miss the main reason for the big army, which is to make sure that foreign resources continue to be sold to the US. In other words, the army is used to protect countries like Saudi Arabia and to make sure that friendly goverments remain in charge. The downside of this imperialist strategy is that the US is drawn into many conflicts and makes many enemies. It's also bad PR, since the US is known for supporting (murderous) dictators as long as they serve US interests.
The real discussion is whether this can and/or should be achieved in a different way.
PS. You deserved to be modded flamebait for the 'You fail'. Make your point and let it speak for itself.
Here is some proof of the rampant racism against Arabs from reputable sources:
Human Rights Watch: Discrimination Against Palestinian Arab Children in Israel's Schools
Haaretz: JNF cannot discriminate against Arabs in allocating land rights
Al-Ahram: 'Democratic' racism 1
Al-Ahram: 'Democratic' racism 2
Of course you can argue whether this qualifies as apartheid, but it is hard to deny the inequality between Jews and Arabs in Israel.
It has no more to do with apartheid than the boundary fences on the borders of most countries
This argument would only be valid if:
1. Israel recognized the right of Palestinians to have a state and would allow 'nation-building'.
2. The wall would have been build on the Green line, instead of cutting through Palestinian land.
Besides, the barrier/wall/fence is only part of the great open air prison that the Palestinian territories have become. Palestinians cannot even travel freely within their own 'country'.
only it is more justified since Israel is under constant terrorist attack
Please look up the number of Israeli citizens killed versus the number of Palestinians citizens killed. Then tell me who is being terrorized.
If Israel were interested in apartheid, it would not have allowed hundreds of thousands of Arabs to become citizens and to live all over the country
And yet there are millions of refugees who have not been allowed back by Israel and whose property has been confiscated. In contrast, Jews with no claim other than their bloodline are allowed to immigrate into Israel.
This is how you could also have handled it:
You: Hey DBA, my boss came up with a new policy: monthly changing passwords
DBA: Hey Scott, I can't remember a dozen monthly changing passwords
You: I understand, here is a password storage program/keychain so you will only have to remember one password instead of a dozen. I'll send a mail to everyone else too, so they can use the same thing.
DBA: Thanks Scott, you are great.
The differences between the imaginary you and the real one is that the imaginary you:
- cares about both the needs of the managers/accountants/policy makers and the employees (instead of just placing the burden on the employees to make the policy work). He will try to find solutions to problems the employees (will) have and will advocate employee friendly solutions.
- saves the company a lot of money by allowing employees to work rather than to each have to come up with solutions to deal with (or subvert) company policy.
- takes responsibility for actually implementing policy (also called professionalism), rather than pretending.
Sys admins/accountants/other support personnel who work like this (even if they do not get support from management) will get my respect. However, those who don't and stifle me with their poorly thought out policies will be scorned.You are not getting it. The work the military is doing in Iraq is not a good benchmark, because you will have to leave again. Then the Iraqi people will need to be able to cure their own sick, keep their economy going and be able to live in peace. The real benchmark is how well they are doing at that. 15 (or 1500) children with eye injuries cured by US military doctors is not a success. Zero children cured by US doctors and thousands cured by Iraqi doctors is a success. The same goes for security. Policing done by US soldiers indicates failure, Iraq needs a good Iraqi police force who can secure their own people. Iraq needs to be able to build/maintain its schools, hospitals, and bridges itself. And finally, a hundred people dying per day is a clear indication of failure. I don't know whether you consider that normal, but I consider that absolutely horrifying.
The advantages are:
That is not my perception. There have been school shootings and other gross acts of violence in Europe (where I'm from), which have more often than not been greeted with mourning and a desire to understand, rather than rage. Even the case of serial child rapist and murderer Dutroux in Belgium, where many mistakes were made by the police, was greeted with peaceful protests (to demand reform) instead of violent outrage. We also have a program in my country where a victim and a perpetrator can meet each other. This is often liberating for the victim, who can ask the perp for his reasons (which is usually very helpful in allowing the victim to give the crime a place) and who can explain to the perp how much hurt he caused, which they often underestimate (so the criminal starts to realize how much damage he has done). Programs like these are in my opinion a more practical way to deal with the fallout of serious crimes; they actually address the needs of both the victim and the perp. In contrast, I see the Amish's focus on forgiveness as a more theoretical exercise. Especially when the forgiveness is required by (community) law, you can wonder what good it actually does. I do see value in it, but only if it is granted freely, where both victim and the perp can see eye to eye.
That sentence is at the core of where our beliefs systems are at odds. If you look at the basic traits that (normal) humans have, then each of those has value, even those that are often seen as negatives. Sexual desire is needed for reproduction. Fear protects us from avoidable threats. Anger allows us to communicate our essential needs ("I will not accept that you endanger my life, by doing ...") and overcome fear so we can meet a threatening situation that cannot be solved by fleeing or posturing. A desire to punish allows us to preserve our social order by punishing destructive behavior. Selfishness allows us to restrain our efforts to manageable levels where we don't try to solve the world's problems. These traits are often balanced out by other tendencies. Love makes us commit to a partner and care for our children (the result of sexual desire). Empathy allow us to try and overcome threats for others (overcoming our fear), since we do not like to see others suffer. It also helps to resolve conflict, by trying to understand our opponent. By punishing those who do not obey the rules of the group, we are able to trust our fellow humans to a greater extent, which allows us to have an advanced society. I could go on and on.
The key to being a good person, is IMO to have the proper balance between these traits. A well-educated, mentally stable person is not inherently sinful (although he may still make mistakes and commit wrongs). I believe that the challenge lies in helping people to find this balance. This balance also depends on our environment and technological abilities, so historical dogma's have no place there. For instance, condoms allow people to safely act on their sexual desire. Before they were widely available, premarital abstinence was a good idea to prevent problems such as single mothers who cannot take care of their children or unhappy marriages. It was flawed, since quite a few people did have sex before marriage (which resulted in other weak solutions, such as forced marriages and having young girls marry), but there was no better choice. Condoms allow for a more mature solution, where unmarried people can act on their sexual desire in a sensible and responsible way, without having to repress it.
No, I'm attacking the perception that Amish forgiveness is key to an utopian society with spiritual enlightment and no violence (which was pretty much what the parent, grandparent and overgrandparent to my post were saying). Pointing out great injustices in their community is a pretty weak attack given that those can be found in any society. Attacking the Amish way of life on the whole would require actually making the point that their society is worse than others, which may or may not be true, but afaik there is no good research to argue that objectively.
However, it is quite clear that Amish forgiveness, which some see as the ultimate adherence to Christian faith, is unable to deal with some kinds of violence and actually increases suffering for some (especially the victims).
Actually, the point of the OP was indeed that the Amish are so much better than regular Christians on this issue and that the strict adherence provides 'inner peace' and 'principled, spirit-based skills'. If you read the links I provided, I think you'll see (physical) punishment and medieval herb remedies, rather than these qualities.
I don't believe in unlimited love and forgiveness, because it results in problems such as those the Amish have. I don't care about doctrines or strict adherence to a belief, I care about results. I'm against the military when it is used to bring suffering, such as in Iraq, but not when it is used for peace keeping. I'm in favor of a well-disciplined police force that serves the people, but not of police officers who behave like criminals themselves. I would like to see prisons replaced by something that is more effective at removing criminal tendencies from people, but a well-managed prison and rehabilitation system is better than forgiving criminals, so they can make more victims.
I much prefer that people manage their violent/aggressive tendencies in the safest way possible, rather than deny that they are human and pretending that those tendencies won't find a (more) damaging outlet.
So I don't agree with your belief that someone is a hypocrite when he preaches love and forgiveness, but watches violent movies (for example). IMHO the greatest failing in many Christians is they refuse to accept basic human traits and attempt to suppress them, which will not result in better humans, but in sinners. The real challenge is finding a practical framework in which people can be happy without hurting others, not a theoretical one.
The Amish might be very Christian in their forgiveness, but there is also a downside to it. Victims of crimes have to deal with little punishment for the perpetrators of crimes, who only have to repent and are then shunned for a while (usually some weeks). This is especially painful when the perpetrator keeps committing the same crimes over and over again (and is forgiven again and again). An example is the Mary Byler incest and physical abuse case:
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/print?id=316371
The unconditional forgiveness is not necessarily granted by Amish victims out of their hearts, the church and community requires them to do so (they will be punished if they do not). In many ways this is similar to the restrictive environment in the 50's, where victims of domestic abuse were often encouraged, if not required, to simply accept it. In contrast, there are now mandatory arrest laws in many states where arrests have to be made when the police finds it likely that domestic violence has occurred, to give a victim some breathing room to decide freely how to deal with the abuser.
This is also an interesting story, explaining how Amish victims are often not granted the same rights as regular Americans:
http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/January-Februa
Now, I'm not pointing out these things to attack the Amish, but more to illustrate that a perceived utopia of virtue and spiritual enlightment always has it downsides. Every community, culture and religion has it's strengths and weaknesses. Usually, a strength is also a weakness.
BTW. The 'informed decision' to join the Amish is debatable. Rumspringa rarely introduces the Amish youth to a 'regular' life. The rules are simply not enforced that harshly, but the Amish parents are supposed to keep a strict eye on them. The 'rebelling' usually limits itself to materialistic and shallow rule breaking, such as wearing 'English' clothes, drinking and listening to music. Given the limited education the Amish receive, both of their religion and 'worldly matters', they cannot really make an informed choice. Also, choosing to leave the Amish often means that the youngsters are seperated from their family and friends (sometimes this is enforced by the Amish through shunning). It is a very tall order for someone to seperate himself from those who he loves, even if he doesn't agree with the Amish rules.
This code crashes when str is null, since the equals method will be incorrectly called on a null object. There are two possible fixes:
1. If you know str can never be null, remove the null check.
2. Otherwise, change && into ||. This is the correct fix if str can actually become null.
Aside from the detectors that are 100% right, there are also those that have very low false positive rates. If you only use these kinds of detectors for analysis, you can compile a list with very few bogus bugs. For instance, we use static bug analysis in the build process of our web application (for a national telecom company). The build fails if the static analyser finds a problem. With a tuned set of detectors, almost all failures are the result of bad code and only very seldomly will a detector be turned off for a certain line of code because it was a false positive.
"Free" health care that means waiting endless amounts of time for routine surgeries.
Capitalist and socialist healthcare both have to deal with inbalances in supply and demand. The problem with healthcare is that there is relatively little elasticity in both. When you have a medical issue, you usually want treatment, if not now, then later. So demand can only be temporarily reduced by having people wait and permanently by denying treatment (or by having people die after waiting too long). The supply is fairly rigid since the number of doctors is often the limitation.
Capitalist healthcare solves these problems by simply denying poor people treatment and secondly by making poor people wait longer before they go to a doctor (an invisible waiting list). Socialist healthcare solves these problems by creating a visible waiting list. This means that there is no discrimination based on income and that the inbalance of supply vs. demand is felt by everyone. Obviously, capitalist healthcare is more pleasant to richer people, who can afford to 'cut ahead' of poorer people (and never feel their pain). On the other hand, in socialist healthcare everyone's health is valued equally. You can also very clearly see the supply/demand situation and by creating sufficient long-term supply (which means regular overcapacity), you can reduce waiting list to the minimum.
Of course, another consequence of capitalist healthcare is that healthcare providers will cater mostly to the rich. A lot of doctors will specialize in beauty treatments and other less needed treatments (where the money is). This means that there are fewer doctors for regular treatments, increasing the prices. The end-result is very expensive healthcare, probably more expensive than well-funded socialist healthcare (with small/non-existing waiting lists).
What gives? Why so down on lots of time off and 35 hour working week?
It really comes down to freedom. Most people in the US don't believe in the government coming in and telling everyone how to run their business.
Being forced to work 50+ hours a week doesn't sound like freedom. Believe it or not, you can still work long hours in Europe if you want; you just can't force employees to do so. If you call that freedom, I think you could also use that word for slavery and child labor.
Sure, there are people who desire the government to establish the "right to slack", but most reasonable people see that it's a bad long-term policy
Working 35-40 hours a week is not slacking, just like a sprinter is not a slacker when compared to a marathon runner. Few people can work effectively on demanding jobs for more than 35-40 hours a week anyway. More hours tend to be spend on personal matters or on fixing mistakes you made because of the long hours. As a lead developer, I want my programmers to create maintainable, correct code, not large quantities of crappy code. Since a large part of the cost is maintainance, doing it properly the first time pays off immensely.
What if a fan failed?
Well, you could get a new one from Apple and swap them out. Assuming they have sensible connectors, it would be a snap. A liquid pump would surely be strongly integrated with the rest of the system. It has to have a liquid-tight connection to the tubes which are used to transport the liquid and that connection would be hard to break to prevent people from pulling the tubes loose. That means that it is probably difficult to remove the pump. Removing the pump could also result in liquid getting out, so you would have to be very careful. Then, while keeping the liquid in, you would have to connect the new pump. I assume that that this a hard repair even for a technician. And hard repairs mean $$$.
Components with moving parts are notoriously unreliable (pumps, fans and hard disks), so this could be an big additional risk.
closed circuit of pump driven
That worries me. What happens if the pump fails? Hopefully, the fans will compensate and you will be alerted. However, even then you are looking at a very costly repair. Wouldn't it be possible to use a heat pipe? Does anyone know why Apple didn't choose one? They used convectional cooling for the Cube, so I assume that they looked into it.
You are aware that Java is not written in Java?
By Java code, I obviously meant the source code which makes up Java. That includes both C and Java code.
One issue is open sourcing the Runtime Enviornment source code which is java code, the other issue is opening the Virtual Machine which is not.
So? What is the issue? I wasn't aware that C code was somehow different under copyright. Clearly someone must have understood what you meant to say, since you got a +1 insightful, but since I seem to be dumb, can you spell out what the issue is here exactly?
Perl is actually dual-licensed under both the Artistic and the GPL, as stated here.
Indeed, but the Artistic license is dominant because it is the most lenient*. In fact, I don't even understand why they bother, because the artistic license is GPL-compatible. Obviously, releasing Java under a GPL-compatible BSD-like license (like I advocate), would effectively also allow anyone to license the code under the GPL (if you so desire).
*People who don't want to abide by the GPL can simply choose to use the Artistic license. So the Free aspects of the GPL license don't have any strength.
How can you generalize over an entire standardized language what its licenses are?
;) ).
I know it's a bit dubious. I tried to pick the initial open source implementation or the most popular implementation. Obviously, proprietary implementations don't count as they aren't open source. This is not about open source vs closed software.
MIT Scheme is GPL alone.
I found this when I searched for "scheme license" in google. After some searching, it seems they changed their license just after this version (in 2001) to the GPL. Obviously, this makes everything very unclear. It would be very interesting to know how their usage and contributions changed after they changed their license, though. Since you seem to be a big Scheme fan, do you know whether MIT Scheme became more or less popular after 2001?
And this list doesn't even include Bigloo, Chicken, Guache, Gambit, Guile, SCM, Pika, SCSH, and about a dozen others.
Obviously, I can't include every language, especially the ones that I don't even know. Also, comparisons with other languages of reasonable size is more prudent. What does it tell us if we discover that a little used language implementation is GPLed? Could it be little used because it is GPLed? The reverse is not true though. If we discover that an implementation for an often used language is GPLed, then we can conclude that those languages weren't held back by the GPL. However, my quick scan showed that BSD-like licenses are more popular. Not that I am claiming to have made a perfect comparison (but hey, this is slashdot
No it doesn't -- they can add exceptions for code that can't be GPL'd to the license.
Modifying the license would make it incompatible with the GPL, which would be incredibly stupid, because then you couldn't link with GPLed code anymore. If you want to grant more rights than the GPL, you could dual license it, but not allowing users to 'Freely' use linked code is an extra limitation. In other words, such a license would be incompatible with the GPL. So there is no solution, except to choose another license or to rewrite the code.
The shitstorms are because Die-Hard Linux geeks/distros want to have everything on their computer/CDs under the GPL.
I don't believe you. Do those distros ship without Perl and Apache, which are both not GPL licensed?
IF they release it under the GPL, I see this making the open-source world a lot friendlier to Java.
Open-source != Free. A significant group of people prefers a BSD-like license over the GPL. A GPL-compatible BSD-like license will be usable by both GPL and non-GPL programmers. Most programming language implementations do not use the GPL, and that is probably for a good reason:
Python - BSD-like license
Perl - Artistic
Gcc - GPL (but glibc is LGPL!)
Zope - BSD-like
Php - BSD-like
Scheme - BSD-like
Ada - Artistic
Eiffel - BSD-like
TCL/TK - BSD-like
Furthermore, the GPL may be a serious problem for Sun. Not all Java code is necessarily copyrighted by them. They might have licensed some code from others. With a BSD-like license, they can just keep those parts with their original license. A GPLed Java would require relicensing, which Sun cannot do. Another problem may be patents. Sun owns quite a few Java-related patents and the GPL requires them to give everyone a free license to those patents. That would allow MS to use those patents in their software and even to build another evil Java clone, but then, Sun wouldn't be able to do anything about it. Another patent problem may be that third party patents cannot be used in GPLed software (even though Sun can license it). So Sun might not be able to include some functionality in a GPLed Java.