I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not. A law isn't a person. The people who created the law, and brought it in into existence are the problem. Those people are the Democrats under the leadership of the President. If they make a broken law, then it's their fault if it doesn't work.
You can play Candy Crush without paying, but it's a hassle. I really don't have a problem with the game's monetization with the exception that some levels are poorly-designed (in terms of challenge and winnability, I suppose they are well-designed to make money) and require a lot of luck, not strategy to win.
I did pay to get past level 70 (IIRC) because it was just such as awful level and wasn't winnable without getting ridiculously lucky. However, I chose to pay because I'd enjoyed the game and didn't mind sending a couple bucks their way. If I had minded, I would have simply quit. If I run into a similar situation again, however, I don't plan on paying more. There are plenty of other games instead. Plus, I've got a big stack of books on my nightstand to read... I actually like the idea that it limits the number of times you can try a level by time because it keeps me from spending an inordinate amount of time with the game.
However, I do understand that a lot of companies are doing little more than selling "digital crack", but I don't think Candy Crush really falls into that category. I don't think it's the best monetization plan in the world, but I don't really find it morally objectionable. I'm happy to toss them a couple bucks for entertaining me. However, most of the Facebook games I tried definitely fell into that category. You weren't paying to have fun, but paying to avoid tedium, and in fact, the games are generally just exercises in grinding anyway. I haven't even looked at a FB game in years.
Well, the alternative is to keep your invention secret and hope no one can reverse engineer it.
The patent system is clearly needed, but what is not needed is all the "obvious" patents, and patenting software should be eliminated, because it basically boils down to patenting a mathematical formula, and that's supposed to be non-patentable.
Or we get into topics like the Constitution permiting the repealment of the second amendment
But no one is (seriously) trying to repeal the second amendment... probably because they know it could never pass. There is however a concerted effort to nickel-and-dime it out of existence in a way that is clearly opposed to the spirit of the amendment itself, and is definitely not within the framework created for modifying the Constitution. That's the problem.
The Constitutional also says nothing for or against social security, and in fact a later amendment permits it.
The Constitution was unequivocally intended to enumerate a very narrow and specific set of powers to the government, and Social Security, and the income tax in general, were universally not considered part of those powers. Hence, the 16th amendment was proposed, passed and enacted. Frankly, if SS or the Federal income tax were being introduced today, I doubt anyone would see the need to bother with amendments, and that's the problem. But I don't think the Tea Partiers argue that Social Security is unconstitutional (because it isn't), but instead that it's a bad idea (which it arguably is). Big difference.
I don't think you've short-circuited your straw man at all. If you disagree with these positions, that's fine; there are plenty of legitimate arguments against them. But don't misrepresent them. The credibility you damage is only your own.
We haven't, as you said, "decided" the Constitution allows Social Security. We changed it so that it explicitly allows Social Security. That's a big difference, too.
The problem is that in the past several decades, we've dispensed with the whole "changing" part and now simply declare it to have meant something different all along. I think it shows in the fact that Federal government has grown vastly in the size and scope of its power and yet the Constitution hasn't been amended in a really long time.
Uh oh... a grown-up on/.?! This is a frightening precedent.
I'll go a step further and point out that most of the "general welfare" items you mention should be the responsibility of the state governments, not the Federal government. The "But Romneycare was pretty much the same thing and it was created by a guy from _your_ party" crowd always failed to acknowledge that one program was a state-level program, which is exactly how it should be, and one is at the Federal level, which is absolutely not within the spirit (though is within the letter according to 5 people in robes) of the Constitution.
In the true spirit of free enterprise, the states should be responsible for absolutely everything except for those narrow and explicit powers enumerated in the Constitution, interpreted as narrowly as possible. Then when one state screws it up, you can move to a different state. Then, we can have, for example, 50 different health care programs, and there's a small chance that one of them might work well and can be copied, rather than one absurdly large and ridiculously complex program, which has no more chance of working than writing a 2900-page piece of code and expecting it to do anything useful on the first run. That is, I think one of the best arguments against the ACA: there's no way to beta test it. Romneycare could be considered a prototype, but there wasn't anywhere near enough time to see how it will work out. Now, we're stuck with it, and there's no getting rid of it, because no program, no matter how ridiculous is ever eliminated. They just keep patching and patching and patching...
People like you and I have been saying this for years, if not decades, but it's not changing it's getting worse. I am very frustrated and don't know what else to do about it, suffice to say I can see that it's a good idea to consider your options _outside_ the U.S. (and that's something I really don't want to consider... I'm not opposed to the idea of leaving the country out of some prejudice, but there are other important reasons, like the fact that all my family is in the U.S.).
Windows NT 3.5 could boot with 12MB of RAM. Think about that.
It probably didn't work well, but I was doing an experiment for fun because I had a stack of 1MB SIMMs and a little device that let you stack a bunch into a single memory slot. Nowadays, Solitaire probably can't run in 12MB of RAM.
Yeah, it's an unfortunate downside of "Write once, run anywhere, but only with this very, exact, precise version of the JRE" that is the reality for too much Java software.
That's why so many Java apps are now distributed with, and install and use, their own copy of the JRE, which I think is the logical end-point of the whole Java mentality.
If I want to browse pictures, I'll go to Flickr. What brain-dead suit forced this design on a bunch of devs who hate it as much as every single reader who has responded here?
Additionally there was less content on the initial screen than there is on the current design. Much of the time I skim the headlines, if I find one I find relevant I immediately read the blurb. If the blurb appeals then I follow the link(s) or read the comments. This new layout doesn't offer as much content on a given screen, and one thing I learned in design in general, if you don't grab your audience with little more than a glimpse, then you've lost your audience.
This. It took me about 5 seconds to conclude the new design for the front page sucks so much I didn't even bother to look at the comments. If it fails in the most fundamental criteria for being useful, as you so well described, then I can't imagine any real thought went into this design other than "we need pointless pictures" and that for some reason it needs to follow along with the stupid new fad of having an absurd amount of white space.
Despite thinking the new Trek movies are awful, there is a lot about them I think was done well, "exciting setpieces" definitely being one of them. However, in no way would I ever consider the writing "decent". The plots were incoherent, actions and motivations made little sense, the rules that any fictional world requires to be believable were regularly flouted for no other reason than to provide a substrate for more mindless (although visually attractive) action. The character development was minimal or non-existent.
JJTrek isn't science fiction, it's just a typical high-budget, low-concept action fare. There's nothing wrong with that. I liked the first Transformers movie for the most part. But we already have more mindless CGI-laden blockbusters that any sane person could want. What we don't have much of is decent science fiction, and there's no reason to squander an honest-to-Roddenberry science fiction property to do the same thing that almost every other director is doing. I realize you'll never get more than the most basic science fiction from a movie (compared to books) and Star Trek certainly has a long history of action, SFX and sex, but it also has a longer history of being thoughtful considerations of the human condition and optimism for the future, both of which are completely lacking in the new movies.
From the summary: 'There is a huge history in American education of being attracted to the new, shiny, hugely promising bauble and then watching the idea fizzle because teachers weren't properly trained to use it and it just ended up in the closet.'
Knowing several educators in the public school system, including my wife, I can say that the above statement isn't a 'huge history' of American education these days, but one of the defining principles. Even good public schools (and I believe here in Virginia our schools are overall pretty good) suffer from this problem. There seems to be almost no one in the equation who actually understands technology and how it can be, and should be, used to enhance education, and the inevitable result is a bunch of money wasted that could be put to infinitely better use, a bunch of teachers being further burdened with tasks that have little or nothing to do with actually educating their students, and a bunch of vendors laughing all the way to the bank... not to mention the students who are always the first ones to be sold out. This is American public schools in a nutshell.
This kind of thing always happens to government monopolies... and don't tell me the public school system isn't a monopoly. Until I can get a voucher that lets me take my share of the public education budget set aside for my kids and use it to enroll them in the schools of my choice... it's a monopoly.
By the way, my kids _are_ in public schools, and overall, like I mentioned above, I'm reasonably satisfied with service and education they have received, including special ed resources, but there's still a lot left to be desired.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not. A law isn't a person. The people who created the law, and brought it in into existence are the problem. Those people are the Democrats under the leadership of the President. If they make a broken law, then it's their fault if it doesn't work.
You can play Candy Crush without paying, but it's a hassle. I really don't have a problem with the game's monetization with the exception that some levels are poorly-designed (in terms of challenge and winnability, I suppose they are well-designed to make money) and require a lot of luck, not strategy to win.
I did pay to get past level 70 (IIRC) because it was just such as awful level and wasn't winnable without getting ridiculously lucky. However, I chose to pay because I'd enjoyed the game and didn't mind sending a couple bucks their way. If I had minded, I would have simply quit. If I run into a similar situation again, however, I don't plan on paying more. There are plenty of other games instead. Plus, I've got a big stack of books on my nightstand to read... I actually like the idea that it limits the number of times you can try a level by time because it keeps me from spending an inordinate amount of time with the game.
However, I do understand that a lot of companies are doing little more than selling "digital crack", but I don't think Candy Crush really falls into that category. I don't think it's the best monetization plan in the world, but I don't really find it morally objectionable. I'm happy to toss them a couple bucks for entertaining me. However, most of the Facebook games I tried definitely fell into that category. You weren't paying to have fun, but paying to avoid tedium, and in fact, the games are generally just exercises in grinding anyway. I haven't even looked at a FB game in years.
Agreed. It's not the 1970s any more. We can adopt a design that reflects this fact.
Didn't necessarily have to be conservationists though, as could also been tourists or 'pet hunters'.
Or Lindsay Lohan...
If it had one more brain cell, it would be capable of a synapse, but probably even the lone brain cell was thankful to end the monotony.
And yet, it thought Windows 8 was a good idea.
Well, the alternative is to keep your invention secret and hope no one can reverse engineer it.
The patent system is clearly needed, but what is not needed is all the "obvious" patents, and patenting software should be eliminated, because it basically boils down to patenting a mathematical formula, and that's supposed to be non-patentable.
Or we get into topics like the Constitution permiting the repealment of the second amendment
But no one is (seriously) trying to repeal the second amendment... probably because they know it could never pass. There is however a concerted effort to nickel-and-dime it out of existence in a way that is clearly opposed to the spirit of the amendment itself, and is definitely not within the framework created for modifying the Constitution. That's the problem.
The Constitutional also says nothing for or against social security, and in fact a later amendment permits it.
The Constitution was unequivocally intended to enumerate a very narrow and specific set of powers to the government, and Social Security, and the income tax in general, were universally not considered part of those powers. Hence, the 16th amendment was proposed, passed and enacted. Frankly, if SS or the Federal income tax were being introduced today, I doubt anyone would see the need to bother with amendments, and that's the problem. But I don't think the Tea Partiers argue that Social Security is unconstitutional (because it isn't), but instead that it's a bad idea (which it arguably is). Big difference.
I don't think you've short-circuited your straw man at all. If you disagree with these positions, that's fine; there are plenty of legitimate arguments against them. But don't misrepresent them. The credibility you damage is only your own.
We haven't, as you said, "decided" the Constitution allows Social Security. We changed it so that it explicitly allows Social Security. That's a big difference, too.
The problem is that in the past several decades, we've dispensed with the whole "changing" part and now simply declare it to have meant something different all along. I think it shows in the fact that Federal government has grown vastly in the size and scope of its power and yet the Constitution hasn't been amended in a really long time.
Uh oh... a grown-up on /.?! This is a frightening precedent.
I'll go a step further and point out that most of the "general welfare" items you mention should be the responsibility of the state governments, not the Federal government. The "But Romneycare was pretty much the same thing and it was created by a guy from _your_ party" crowd always failed to acknowledge that one program was a state-level program, which is exactly how it should be, and one is at the Federal level, which is absolutely not within the spirit (though is within the letter according to 5 people in robes) of the Constitution.
In the true spirit of free enterprise, the states should be responsible for absolutely everything except for those narrow and explicit powers enumerated in the Constitution, interpreted as narrowly as possible. Then when one state screws it up, you can move to a different state. Then, we can have, for example, 50 different health care programs, and there's a small chance that one of them might work well and can be copied, rather than one absurdly large and ridiculously complex program, which has no more chance of working than writing a 2900-page piece of code and expecting it to do anything useful on the first run. That is, I think one of the best arguments against the ACA: there's no way to beta test it. Romneycare could be considered a prototype, but there wasn't anywhere near enough time to see how it will work out. Now, we're stuck with it, and there's no getting rid of it, because no program, no matter how ridiculous is ever eliminated. They just keep patching and patching and patching...
> Personally I believe that just about every clause in the Constitution has occasionally had its meaning perverted by the government.
To be fair, I'm pretty sure the government isn't housing Federal troops in private homes, but otherwise, I agree with you. ;-)
People like you and I have been saying this for years, if not decades, but it's not changing it's getting worse. I am very frustrated and don't know what else to do about it, suffice to say I can see that it's a good idea to consider your options _outside_ the U.S. (and that's something I really don't want to consider... I'm not opposed to the idea of leaving the country out of some prejudice, but there are other important reasons, like the fact that all my family is in the U.S.).
Windows NT 3.5 could boot with 12MB of RAM. Think about that.
It probably didn't work well, but I was doing an experiment for fun because I had a stack of 1MB SIMMs and a little device that let you stack a bunch into a single memory slot. Nowadays, Solitaire probably can't run in 12MB of RAM.
Yeah, it's an unfortunate downside of "Write once, run anywhere, but only with this very, exact, precise version of the JRE" that is the reality for too much Java software.
Perhaps you should consider upgrading from a 200MHz Pentium Pro. Just sayin'.
That's why so many Java apps are now distributed with, and install and use, their own copy of the JRE, which I think is the logical end-point of the whole Java mentality.
Yes, but we come here for abuse from the commenters, not the site itself. Big difference.
Yes, except Ctrl-Alt-Del was invented at least a decade before CD's were available for computers.
Maybe the design is targeted to an iPad in portrait orientation? Because I'm _sure_ the majority of people read /. that way.
If I want to browse pictures, I'll go to Flickr. What brain-dead suit forced this design on a bunch of devs who hate it as much as every single reader who has responded here?
No kidding. The new Digg design was so bad I practically forgot it exists. After almost 13 years, I'd hate to forget /. exists.
So Slashdot wants to turn itself from a place to get into a good argument into something that just gives you abuse. Insightful comment. :-)
Additionally there was less content on the initial screen than there is on the current design. Much of the time I skim the headlines, if I find one I find relevant I immediately read the blurb. If the blurb appeals then I follow the link(s) or read the comments. This new layout doesn't offer as much content on a given screen, and one thing I learned in design in general, if you don't grab your audience with little more than a glimpse, then you've lost your audience.
This. It took me about 5 seconds to conclude the new design for the front page sucks so much I didn't even bother to look at the comments. If it fails in the most fundamental criteria for being useful, as you so well described, then I can't imagine any real thought went into this design other than "we need pointless pictures" and that for some reason it needs to follow along with the stupid new fad of having an absurd amount of white space.
"decent writing"?
Despite thinking the new Trek movies are awful, there is a lot about them I think was done well, "exciting setpieces" definitely being one of them. However, in no way would I ever consider the writing "decent". The plots were incoherent, actions and motivations made little sense, the rules that any fictional world requires to be believable were regularly flouted for no other reason than to provide a substrate for more mindless (although visually attractive) action. The character development was minimal or non-existent.
JJTrek isn't science fiction, it's just a typical high-budget, low-concept action fare. There's nothing wrong with that. I liked the first Transformers movie for the most part. But we already have more mindless CGI-laden blockbusters that any sane person could want. What we don't have much of is decent science fiction, and there's no reason to squander an honest-to-Roddenberry science fiction property to do the same thing that almost every other director is doing. I realize you'll never get more than the most basic science fiction from a movie (compared to books) and Star Trek certainly has a long history of action, SFX and sex, but it also has a longer history of being thoughtful considerations of the human condition and optimism for the future, both of which are completely lacking in the new movies.
From the summary: 'There is a huge history in American education of being attracted to the new, shiny, hugely promising bauble and then watching the idea fizzle because teachers weren't properly trained to use it and it just ended up in the closet.'
Knowing several educators in the public school system, including my wife, I can say that the above statement isn't a 'huge history' of American education these days, but one of the defining principles. Even good public schools (and I believe here in Virginia our schools are overall pretty good) suffer from this problem. There seems to be almost no one in the equation who actually understands technology and how it can be, and should be, used to enhance education, and the inevitable result is a bunch of money wasted that could be put to infinitely better use, a bunch of teachers being further burdened with tasks that have little or nothing to do with actually educating their students, and a bunch of vendors laughing all the way to the bank... not to mention the students who are always the first ones to be sold out. This is American public schools in a nutshell.
This kind of thing always happens to government monopolies... and don't tell me the public school system isn't a monopoly. Until I can get a voucher that lets me take my share of the public education budget set aside for my kids and use it to enroll them in the schools of my choice... it's a monopoly.
By the way, my kids _are_ in public schools, and overall, like I mentioned above, I'm reasonably satisfied with service and education they have received, including special ed resources, but there's still a lot left to be desired.
I didn't RTFA, but I wouldn't be surprised if the recommendation for the name came from the source of the public monies itself.
Come to the Dark Side... we have "whom".