Well aware, I meant the member states. That said, it wouldn't surprise me if the EU itself has its own intelligence division if only to get leverage on member states.
Don't delude yourself into thinking the EU has no identity outside of its member states. That would be like saying the US federal government has no identity outside the member states. Its more complicated then that. The EU itself has an interest indifferent to its member states as does the US federal government. Human institutions are like that.
First off, the US is mostly not in the habit of killing people it doesn't like. The exception might be terrorists but really what are your alternatives with people that like to blow up bus loads of civilians? Our preferred method is bribery. We pay people to do what we want. Its sometimes expensive. But when we want something sacks of cash will just show up on someone's door step.
Second, the EU states are not really involved in geo politics anymore. They've outsourced it to the US. We negotiate on their behalf. That is effectively what NATO means. We provide their strategic security. They know that. We know that. It is why they give us access. It is why they defer to us on many matters concerning security. We protect them. So why do they not have an expensive intelligence gathering system? The same reason they don't have large nuclear aersinals or navies or armies. Its been outsourced.
They are no more moral then the Italian city states were moral when they refused to do their own fighting and instead hired mercenary armies. Difference is that the europeans don't pay us in gold. They pay us on power. We provide the military and diplomatic muscle. They give us control.
Quid pro quo. Don't like the arrangement? Provide your own security. French tried that and they didn't like being out in the cold.
That's only because finland and similar countries have outsourced their strategic security to the United States or some other foreign agency.
That is... they don't spy because we do it for them. And in fact, the NSA just revealed they have a formalized relationship that is basically exactly that. The US does spy on Europe. And as part of the deal, we share that intelligence. The US shares most of its information with its allies both because we're allies and on a quid pro quo basis to get additional information they might get about various things.
So again... presuming a holier then thou attitude on the matter is merely ignorance masquerading as virtue.
Is anyone honestly going to claim no one else is spying? Who thinks the EU doesn't spy on the US? etc?
Everyone is spying on everyone else. Its part of diplomacy.
Why? countries lie. Countries manipulate. And no one really trusts anyone in the end. So you spy.
Every nation spies on every other nation to the extent that they care and have the resources. This is why the US catches Russian sleeper agents occasionally... or busts Chinese spies. This happens all the time. And the general convention on the matter is that if we don't punish their spying we won't punish their spying.
How many spies has the US executed recently? None. And we could by international law. Same thing with the spies they catch. They aren't killed. They're exchanged.
I have to think there is something more going on then lack of entertainment. Furthermore, married couples tend to prefer suburban settings.
Consider that the solution here is getting your engineers dates. If they marry then demographically they'll be inclined to stay and even avoid the city.
We're human beings. We're going to use sex to sell. We've been doing it for tens of thousands of years. Best get over that.
Think only women's bodies are used? Men's bodies are used as well. And not just men's bodies but the masculine mystique. The whole tough guy, macho man... thing. And do you see men complain about that even though its easily as exploitive of male psychology as female swimsuit issue? No.
Because men understand that's just reality. Women like it. And men therefore want to be it. It gains them status in our primate monkey society and since we're social creatures we like status.
This might sound sexist... but a price women must pay for equality with men is not playing the victim all the time.
Sitting at the big boy table means you don't cry and you don't whine. You take what is yours and deal with what you cannot change without getting dramatic about it.
You will be sexualized. We do see you as sexual objects. Hey, its how my ape brain sees you. I could for the sake of political correctness pretend otherwise which is all any man does that claims otherwise. But in the back of his mind the ape will maintain that judgment and he really doesn't give an f'ing damn what anyone else thinks about that. Its evolution baby. Deal with it.
All you will accomplish by demanding the impossible will be to get people to lie to you skillfully and wrap you in a fantasy.
Why do that to yourself? Accept what is going to happen and make the best of it.
Again, we're not talking about something just being small. We're talking about it being TIGHT.
If the program is more efficient if its a bit longer then most would agree that is superior.
We are also talking about how neat the code is and how well documented it is and how much spaghetti is in it.
Can we all agree that spaghetti code is bad? Because in large part what I think we want is for code to be written and then rewritten when its all over the place. Think of it like writing a term paper.
You write out a rough draft. The draft is very similar to the end paper. But it probably isn't as nicely structured and you might need to flesh out a couple things. The final draft is often a complete rewrite of the rough draft using the rough draft as an outline.
We need more of that in coding. Coding and proof reading the the whole program. Will it run if its badly organized and inefficient? Probably. But its a mess and its probably a good deal slower then it would be otherwise.
Sloppy code is bad code. That is what we're saying here.
I didn't say make something so simplistic it doesn't work.
I said make it as simple and efficient as possible. And yes, simplicity is almost always more efficient. It is POSSIBLE for something to be more simple yet less efficient but it is highly unlikely.
And regardless, I'm really just talking about the distinction between sloppy and tidy code.
Sloppy code is what I'm arguing against here. Sloppy, trashy, poorly documented, redundant code.
When people argue against complexity THAT is really what they're talking about. If it needs to be complicated then it needs to be complicated. There is no argument there. However, if it doesn't NEED to be complicated then it shouldn't be complicated. Make it as simple as possible. It will run better, be easier to maintain, and won't make other programmers roll their eyes.
Its not just about sex. Its about hiring some attractive people to represent your company. Because your engineers are probably unshaved smelly cave dwellers that probably don't make a good impression at conventions. So how do you make your engineer or software developer seem credible? Put a 21 year old aspiring model next to him that smiles and makes eyes at everyone that gets near the booth.
Is it dumb? No more dumb then the people buying your products. Which isn't an insult against them... people are just like that. Get over it. We're not robots. We're semi intelligent social opportunistic primates. And even women like having attractive women around.
Open a women's magazine. What do you see? Is it lots of half naked men? Nope... half naked women.
As to getting the attention of gay men... All respect, but they're by definition a minority. Were they not the species itself would be in some trouble. So while it might make some sense to reach out to any demographic, the reality is that its probably a marginal issue at best.
All of that said, possibly there is something to be said for not having such aggressive marketing at conventions. Rather, put your unshaved cave dweller out there sans smiling boobs... and just see what happens.
It will either be fine or it won't. And we'll learn something either way.
Sounds like another man that's seen the horror of spaghetti code.
That's really the issue here. No one has a problem with complexity if what you're doing is complicated. Its just a question of not making it MORE complicated then it needs to be or making it incomprehensible.
When you redefine your opposition's argument and then knock it down with your own argument it is called a strawman. That's what he just did there.
No one is saying in regards to simplicity that all programs should be two line bits of nothing.
What people are instead saying is that code should be efficient, tight, and achieve the end goal as simply and directly as possible.
What we are and have always been talking about is efficiency. It goes back to the first computers that had very limited memory. They required VERY efficient code because they simply didn't have the storage or memory to run anything that took up more space. As a result, code for those machines tended to be very very efficient. It was a requirement.
When we complain about complexity, we are not complaining that the task of the program is too complex. Rather, we're complaining that the program is badly coded. We are complaining that it is inefficient and disorganized.
Science might not have all the answers but can you honestly pretend that the humanities will answer questions science won't?
I don't doubt they will TRY to answer those questions but will they answer them better then just anyone saying anything that comes into their head?
I am not a critic of the humanities in and of themselves. They're great and useful and all of that. Its just that proscribing them for degrees is frequently not useful.
This is especially true because there are a great many BAD humanities classes that are frequently requirements for degrees. Many of these classes are political in nature. Put in place to satisfy interest groups but which have no use to the student either as a future member of society or as an individual person. And really pushing that on students against their interests is a betrayal.
I won't get into which classes are an issue because it would open me up to political backlash and that is a waste of time. The point is that they're not culturally or intellectually enriching and so have no utility to the student. Those classes need to go before we start talking about how useful the humanities are to science.
The sad thing is that they COULD be all those things but they're not.
They don't even encourage freedom of thought or expression. Its all the same memorize that, repeat this, agree with this position or lose points. Its worse then science because science is at least objective.
The humanities are by their nature SUBjective but are frequently taught as if they are objective without providing any means of testing or disproving anything.
In science, 1 person can disagree with 1,000,000 people and be right. And be proven right. And have his name go down there after as the guy that was right when everyone else told him he was wrong.
Can you do that in the humanities? Nope. Being right or wrong is mostly a popularity contest. Its politics.
Spray paint something and maybe that isn't a big deal. But I've seen people do things like destroy very expensive equipment at construction sites. 200,000 dollar cranes TOTALED.
And the perps generally get off with comparatively light sentences. People need to respect each other, their property, and their space.
And if you don't, then society has the right and responsibility to discourage the practice proportionately.
Not just environmental stuff. What about the wallstreet guys that stole or in some cases hundreds of millions of dollars.
Death penalty. Think about it like this.... that is the life savings of how many people? Guy robs a liquor store for 100 dollars and gets 20 years. Guy that steals 100 million gets 5 years in a minimum security prison.
Many cases of fraud, theft, vandalism, etc need to carry stiffer sentences. While of course other sentences need to be reduced radically. All the drug related crimes need to be looked again. Consensual adults and all that.
Really? So, people that bought the first versions of Windows were all stupid? Everyone that bought the office suites?
Get real.
MS built their fortune providing the market with a standardized OS and a standardized productivity suite.
These were needed by the market and MS provided a good consistent product.
Does every MS discussion have to turn into linux fanboyism? Can we pull our heads out of our asses for two seconds and recognize that MS did actually provide a good product at one point? Because that's all I'm saying.
The restrictions they put on the system were horrible their justifications for them were insulting.
Above and beyond this could only happen if they thought we were idiots and simply wouldn't understand. They need to appreciate the distinction between lack of interest/awareness and actually being stupid.
Most people are not stupid. They're oblivious. But not stupid. Explain the rules to people and they'll typically see what is going on pretty fast.
MS tried to pull a fast one and was caught in the act. They've done this repeatedly with other product launches. It needs to stop.
There are reasons for throttling bandwidth. Entirely reasonable and practical reasons for it... and I wouldn't get in the way of ISPs from doing that. But they can't take advantage of that understanding to exploit people or undermine services using their bandwidth.
Please... do not make us take your flexibility away ISPs. Because if you start messing with this we will do it.
An implicent part of the freedom of speech is the freedom to ignore or to not hear what someone is saying.
To that end, while it is wrong to censor people and make it harder for others to hear what they have to say... there is no problem with empowering people to selectively ignore people.
The distinction is that a censor will decide for you what you do or do not what to hear while YOU personally decide what you do or do not what to hear.
We could go further by allowing individuals to personally elect or appoint censors. Say you trust someone to decide what should and should not be blocked. But that's it.
Are trolls and fanboys an issue in ANY community? Yes. But the proper solution is to empower the community itself to determine who is a troll or a fanboy or whatever term you wish to use and who is not. It is not the right or responsibility of some overriding organization to make that determination.
Some sort of "admin" is fine on a forum or private community social networking system. But as a general rule in free society, speech must remain free... as must the right to ignore.
... So... you couldn't just take a dip in a swimming pool?
It goes without saying that once it becomes common knowledge that these things are being used thieves are going to burn their clothing after the heist. What then? Swab their bodies? Their lungs? The whole diver mask thing seemed to imply the air had to be filtered.
Slashdot Mirror
Well aware, I meant the member states. That said, it wouldn't surprise me if the EU itself has its own intelligence division if only to get leverage on member states.
Don't delude yourself into thinking the EU has no identity outside of its member states. That would be like saying the US federal government has no identity outside the member states. Its more complicated then that. The EU itself has an interest indifferent to its member states as does the US federal government. Human institutions are like that.
First off, the US is mostly not in the habit of killing people it doesn't like. The exception might be terrorists but really what are your alternatives with people that like to blow up bus loads of civilians? Our preferred method is bribery. We pay people to do what we want. Its sometimes expensive. But when we want something sacks of cash will just show up on someone's door step.
Second, the EU states are not really involved in geo politics anymore. They've outsourced it to the US. We negotiate on their behalf. That is effectively what NATO means. We provide their strategic security. They know that. We know that. It is why they give us access. It is why they defer to us on many matters concerning security. We protect them. So why do they not have an expensive intelligence gathering system? The same reason they don't have large nuclear aersinals or navies or armies. Its been outsourced.
They are no more moral then the Italian city states were moral when they refused to do their own fighting and instead hired mercenary armies. Difference is that the europeans don't pay us in gold. They pay us on power. We provide the military and diplomatic muscle. They give us control.
Quid pro quo. Don't like the arrangement? Provide your own security. French tried that and they didn't like being out in the cold.
We're on the same planet.
We all come into this world red and screaming.
Tell me how you stay in that ivory tower of yours riding around on unicorns without reality laughing you out of existence?
Be reasonable or die. That is not a threat. That is a rule the universe has... you can be reasonable or you can die.
Choose.
We are going to continue to spy because to do otherwise would be death.
That's only because finland and similar countries have outsourced their strategic security to the United States or some other foreign agency.
That is... they don't spy because we do it for them. And in fact, the NSA just revealed they have a formalized relationship that is basically exactly that. The US does spy on Europe. And as part of the deal, we share that intelligence. The US shares most of its information with its allies both because we're allies and on a quid pro quo basis to get additional information they might get about various things.
So again... presuming a holier then thou attitude on the matter is merely ignorance masquerading as virtue.
it is after all their job to spy.
Is anyone honestly going to claim no one else is spying? Who thinks the EU doesn't spy on the US? etc?
Everyone is spying on everyone else. Its part of diplomacy.
Why? countries lie. Countries manipulate. And no one really trusts anyone in the end. So you spy.
Every nation spies on every other nation to the extent that they care and have the resources. This is why the US catches Russian sleeper agents occasionally... or busts Chinese spies. This happens all the time. And the general convention on the matter is that if we don't punish their spying we won't punish their spying.
How many spies has the US executed recently? None. And we could by international law. Same thing with the spies they catch. They aren't killed. They're exchanged.
Economic pressure is not what forces families out of cities.
Its the desire for an ACTUAL home and typically superior schools with safer neighborhoods.
Ask people that moved to suburban neighborhoods why they moved. There have been many surveys on this question.
I have to think there is something more going on then lack of entertainment. Furthermore, married couples tend to prefer suburban settings.
Consider that the solution here is getting your engineers dates. If they marry then demographically they'll be inclined to stay and even avoid the city.
Oh, forget relativity... Just pointing out we're not perfectly rational.
The dr who t-shirt comment made me laugh. There are probably more men wearing dresses and high heels right now then women wearing dr who t-shirts.
No really.
Actually think about that in the context of gender relations.
I'd go into this deeper but it gets complicated.
We're human beings. We're going to use sex to sell. We've been doing it for tens of thousands of years. Best get over that.
Think only women's bodies are used? Men's bodies are used as well. And not just men's bodies but the masculine mystique. The whole tough guy, macho man... thing. And do you see men complain about that even though its easily as exploitive of male psychology as female swimsuit issue? No.
Because men understand that's just reality. Women like it. And men therefore want to be it. It gains them status in our primate monkey society and since we're social creatures we like status.
This might sound sexist... but a price women must pay for equality with men is not playing the victim all the time.
Sitting at the big boy table means you don't cry and you don't whine. You take what is yours and deal with what you cannot change without getting dramatic about it.
You will be sexualized. We do see you as sexual objects. Hey, its how my ape brain sees you. I could for the sake of political correctness pretend otherwise which is all any man does that claims otherwise. But in the back of his mind the ape will maintain that judgment and he really doesn't give an f'ing damn what anyone else thinks about that. Its evolution baby. Deal with it.
All you will accomplish by demanding the impossible will be to get people to lie to you skillfully and wrap you in a fantasy.
Why do that to yourself? Accept what is going to happen and make the best of it.
Again, we're not talking about something just being small. We're talking about it being TIGHT.
If the program is more efficient if its a bit longer then most would agree that is superior.
We are also talking about how neat the code is and how well documented it is and how much spaghetti is in it.
Can we all agree that spaghetti code is bad? Because in large part what I think we want is for code to be written and then rewritten when its all over the place. Think of it like writing a term paper.
You write out a rough draft. The draft is very similar to the end paper. But it probably isn't as nicely structured and you might need to flesh out a couple things. The final draft is often a complete rewrite of the rough draft using the rough draft as an outline.
We need more of that in coding. Coding and proof reading the the whole program. Will it run if its badly organized and inefficient? Probably. But its a mess and its probably a good deal slower then it would be otherwise.
Sloppy code is bad code. That is what we're saying here.
Again, strawman.
I didn't say make something so simplistic it doesn't work.
I said make it as simple and efficient as possible. And yes, simplicity is almost always more efficient. It is POSSIBLE for something to be more simple yet less efficient but it is highly unlikely.
And regardless, I'm really just talking about the distinction between sloppy and tidy code.
Sloppy code is what I'm arguing against here. Sloppy, trashy, poorly documented, redundant code.
When people argue against complexity THAT is really what they're talking about. If it needs to be complicated then it needs to be complicated. There is no argument there. However, if it doesn't NEED to be complicated then it shouldn't be complicated. Make it as simple as possible. It will run better, be easier to maintain, and won't make other programmers roll their eyes.
Booth babes are pretty.
Pretty is attractive.
Attractive is good marketing.
Its not just about sex. Its about hiring some attractive people to represent your company. Because your engineers are probably unshaved smelly cave dwellers that probably don't make a good impression at conventions. So how do you make your engineer or software developer seem credible? Put a 21 year old aspiring model next to him that smiles and makes eyes at everyone that gets near the booth.
Is it dumb? No more dumb then the people buying your products. Which isn't an insult against them... people are just like that. Get over it. We're not robots. We're semi intelligent social opportunistic primates. And even women like having attractive women around.
Open a women's magazine. What do you see? Is it lots of half naked men? Nope... half naked women.
As to getting the attention of gay men... All respect, but they're by definition a minority. Were they not the species itself would be in some trouble. So while it might make some sense to reach out to any demographic, the reality is that its probably a marginal issue at best.
All of that said, possibly there is something to be said for not having such aggressive marketing at conventions. Rather, put your unshaved cave dweller out there sans smiling boobs... and just see what happens.
It will either be fine or it won't. And we'll learn something either way.
Sounds like another man that's seen the horror of spaghetti code.
That's really the issue here. No one has a problem with complexity if what you're doing is complicated. Its just a question of not making it MORE complicated then it needs to be or making it incomprehensible.
When you redefine your opposition's argument and then knock it down with your own argument it is called a strawman. That's what he just did there.
No one is saying in regards to simplicity that all programs should be two line bits of nothing.
What people are instead saying is that code should be efficient, tight, and achieve the end goal as simply and directly as possible.
What we are and have always been talking about is efficiency. It goes back to the first computers that had very limited memory. They required VERY efficient code because they simply didn't have the storage or memory to run anything that took up more space. As a result, code for those machines tended to be very very efficient. It was a requirement.
When we complain about complexity, we are not complaining that the task of the program is too complex. Rather, we're complaining that the program is badly coded. We are complaining that it is inefficient and disorganized.
So nice try. Try again.
Science might not have all the answers but can you honestly pretend that the humanities will answer questions science won't?
I don't doubt they will TRY to answer those questions but will they answer them better then just anyone saying anything that comes into their head?
I am not a critic of the humanities in and of themselves. They're great and useful and all of that. Its just that proscribing them for degrees is frequently not useful.
This is especially true because there are a great many BAD humanities classes that are frequently requirements for degrees. Many of these classes are political in nature. Put in place to satisfy interest groups but which have no use to the student either as a future member of society or as an individual person. And really pushing that on students against their interests is a betrayal.
I won't get into which classes are an issue because it would open me up to political backlash and that is a waste of time. The point is that they're not culturally or intellectually enriching and so have no utility to the student. Those classes need to go before we start talking about how useful the humanities are to science.
Yep.
The sad thing is that they COULD be all those things but they're not.
They don't even encourage freedom of thought or expression. Its all the same memorize that, repeat this, agree with this position or lose points. Its worse then science because science is at least objective.
The humanities are by their nature SUBjective but are frequently taught as if they are objective without providing any means of testing or disproving anything.
In science, 1 person can disagree with 1,000,000 people and be right. And be proven right. And have his name go down there after as the guy that was right when everyone else told him he was wrong.
Can you do that in the humanities? Nope. Being right or wrong is mostly a popularity contest. Its politics.
Depends on what form it takes.
Spray paint something and maybe that isn't a big deal. But I've seen people do things like destroy very expensive equipment at construction sites. 200,000 dollar cranes TOTALED.
And the perps generally get off with comparatively light sentences. People need to respect each other, their property, and their space.
And if you don't, then society has the right and responsibility to discourage the practice proportionately.
Bankrupt a thousand people through fraud sending them into poverty and it is very much an act of violence.
You do that sort of thing and a blood price is justified.
Not just environmental stuff. What about the wallstreet guys that stole or in some cases hundreds of millions of dollars.
Death penalty. Think about it like this.... that is the life savings of how many people? Guy robs a liquor store for 100 dollars and gets 20 years. Guy that steals 100 million gets 5 years in a minimum security prison.
Many cases of fraud, theft, vandalism, etc need to carry stiffer sentences. While of course other sentences need to be reduced radically. All the drug related crimes need to be looked again. Consensual adults and all that.
Really? So, people that bought the first versions of Windows were all stupid? Everyone that bought the office suites?
Get real.
MS built their fortune providing the market with a standardized OS and a standardized productivity suite.
These were needed by the market and MS provided a good consistent product.
Does every MS discussion have to turn into linux fanboyism? Can we pull our heads out of our asses for two seconds and recognize that MS did actually provide a good product at one point? Because that's all I'm saying.
The restrictions they put on the system were horrible their justifications for them were insulting.
Above and beyond this could only happen if they thought we were idiots and simply wouldn't understand. They need to appreciate the distinction between lack of interest/awareness and actually being stupid.
Most people are not stupid. They're oblivious. But not stupid. Explain the rules to people and they'll typically see what is going on pretty fast.
MS tried to pull a fast one and was caught in the act. They've done this repeatedly with other product launches. It needs to stop.
There are reasons for throttling bandwidth. Entirely reasonable and practical reasons for it... and I wouldn't get in the way of ISPs from doing that. But they can't take advantage of that understanding to exploit people or undermine services using their bandwidth.
Please... do not make us take your flexibility away ISPs. Because if you start messing with this we will do it.
An implicent part of the freedom of speech is the freedom to ignore or to not hear what someone is saying.
To that end, while it is wrong to censor people and make it harder for others to hear what they have to say... there is no problem with empowering people to selectively ignore people.
The distinction is that a censor will decide for you what you do or do not what to hear while YOU personally decide what you do or do not what to hear.
We could go further by allowing individuals to personally elect or appoint censors. Say you trust someone to decide what should and should not be blocked. But that's it.
Are trolls and fanboys an issue in ANY community? Yes. But the proper solution is to empower the community itself to determine who is a troll or a fanboy or whatever term you wish to use and who is not. It is not the right or responsibility of some overriding organization to make that determination.
Some sort of "admin" is fine on a forum or private community social networking system. But as a general rule in free society, speech must remain free... as must the right to ignore.
... So... you couldn't just take a dip in a swimming pool?
It goes without saying that once it becomes common knowledge that these things are being used thieves are going to burn their clothing after the heist. What then? Swab their bodies? Their lungs? The whole diver mask thing seemed to imply the air had to be filtered.