+1... I'm not sure why CherryPy hasn't gained momentum. It is such a fantastic tool.. and because it's an HTTP framework and not a "web framework," it is both easy to learn and does not lock you into what the web framework is designed to do (cough, Django). It's seriously taken the "work" out of web programming, in my mind... well, except for JavaScript being awful.
What do you mean you cannot build a 'modern' webapp using Java? It's done all the time. If memory serves, Gmail is in Java. I also disagree with PHP being the obvious choice. It's a lot like JavaScript: it's everywhere, so people use it. It doesn't change the fact that it's a piece of rubbish. Ruby and Python are much better suited towards modern web development. PHP is glorified template system that is extremely inconsistent and overall ass backwards. The whole notion of mapping a URI to a file is so 1990's.
Python with CherryPy and Jinja2 is my preferred backend system. All of these tools can be picked up in trivial amounts of time and allow for excellent organization and maintainability of code. I'd strongly suggest staying away from PHP.
I absolutely agree with providing citizens means to defend themselves. I'm not a big fan of the Minority Report type of "crime fighting," however. Also, by punishment, I really mean this, to elaborate: If someone has a pattern of running mount/fsck, and kill commands on unwilling individuals, they shouldn't be allowed to participate in society. I'm really not a big fan of the state deciding someone should die (aka, formal death penalty)... I'd be much more in favor of a solution that allows the victim's family members to carry out judgement instead. Yes, I realize this would probably bring problems of its own.
How the hell has this received +3 insightful? I live in the gun-toting US, and I can offer the same anecdotal evidence: I too don't know anyone who has ever faced an armed bad guy.
I have yet to see any evidence that undeniably proves that gun ownership by citizens has a positive or negative impact on public safety. However, that is rather beyond the point. I realize this thread is not about the US, but the US constitution and bill of rights includes a high degree of wisdom and foresight. The 2nd amendment is there not because it is to improve overall public safety, but to ensure that the general populace has the ability to overthrow the government, should it become unbearably corrupt. (I think if the writers of the Constitution had even more foresight, they may have put in some bits about personal rights to own nuclear weapons, to keep up with the arms race. Or perhaps a more realistic solution would be to limit the power of the nation's military: oh wait, that's in there already... weird.)
And besides the constitution stuff, my firearms are tools to keep myself and my family safe. Being safe with a gun is not rocket science. One has to break 2 or 3 "rules" at the same time before one can harm another person accidentally.
And how exactly do you propose to make people not want to commit violent crime? Put drugs in the water supply?
Most regions of the United States already put drugs in the water supply.
You sound like one of those morons who believes that solving the "poverty problem" will eliminate crime, and you couldn't be more wrong. Sure, you might eliminate the non-violent burglars, who are really just a nuisance, but it won't do anything about people who love to commit violence.
I haven't seen any posts here claiming that solving the "poverty problem" will eliminate crime. Reducing poverty will impact the crime rate, but nothing will eliminate crime. Like you said, some people just want to do bad things. There is not much one can do to control other people other than provide punishment for their dirty deeds.
I haven't found the article, but I am pretty sure it was about different criteria that police reported homicide. This won't be completely conclusive, but I've done a little bit of digging into how the UK defines it and how the US defines it.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/homicide: Defines homicide as "the killing of a human being due to the act or omission of another. Included among homicides are murder and manslaughter, but not all homicides are a crime, particularly when there is a lack of criminal intent. Non-criminal homicides include killing in self-defense, a misadventure like a hunting accident or automobile wreck without a violation of law like reckless driving, or legal (government) execution. Suicide is a homicide, but in most cases there is no one to prosecute if the suicide is successful. Assisting or attempting suicide can be a crime." I believe this is more along the lines of how the US categorizes it... I will continue to search for more on this. It probably varies by state.
I realize this isn't very detailed, but perhaps it offers some other possibilities. Statistics are unreliable and governments have a tendency of changing how they collect data to coincide with a recent change to make it appear as if some political move actually had a positive impact.
I came across something a few months back that talked about the reporting methods/classifications for homicides being vastly different between the US and some other nations, including UK. I am trying to find it again; if I do, I will post it here.. if not, well... at least maybe consider the possibility and help me search?:) Some things are difficult to Google for.
the only real solution is education. but that's gonna be a hell of an effort and i don't see how the white house, the department of homeland security, the house of representatives, joe lieberman or a bunch of crap selling fluff spraying corporations could be of any help at that, not to mention they could very well be part of the problem!
No, the answer is not education. I don't care how much education you throw at a head of lettuce, it's still a head of lettuce and it's still about as stupid as the average American. Intelligence is a choice. We don't need to educate the masses; we need to encourage the masses to educate themselves, which is a far more difficult task. Oh, and I'm rather convinced that there's no government program or agency that could possibly accomplish this--in fact, they probably see to it that it maintain status quo.
No, not as in the top 2%. I don't know where this notion comes from that only the top 2% of world's employees are worth having. Hiring the right employee in my mind means someone who will mesh with the rest of the team and who has genuine interest in the job (maybe not every aspect, but parts of it). I would venture to say that the majority of individuals who work under those circumstances are eager to deliver good work and be productive.
Not every corporation needs the top technical people; what they need is diligent people with enough savvy to get the job done. Most things are far from rocket science, but if management stifles the creativity and sucks the joy out of their staff, of course there will be problems. Let's be realistic here: most people do not work highly "prestigious" jobs. The notion that the other 98% must be micromanaged is absurd. I'm not sure if that's what you're saying--I hope not.
Yes, of course. But I think more accurately, your sentence would read: "Some people have a predisposition before they even start a job. A lot of times that attitude can't be seen through an interview."
The majority of people, in my limited experience, are not like this. Most people want to care; they want to make a difference--at least, if they're given ownership and not micromanaged.
Like what's already been said, hiring the right people is key. Besides that, you assume that everyone needs to be told what to do and monitored constantly--and perhaps more importantly, you assume that micromanaging these people will actually solve this "problem."
Perhaps if management didn't assume the majority of their employees are completely irresponsible and child-like in nature, things would be better.
On the other hand, if one took a reasonable approach, the majority of management positions would make little or no sense and thus their existence largely invalidated. Let's face it, in most organizations, management is nothing more than glorified paper pushers, anyways... but they make a lot more money.
Then how about we remove "directly" from the statement? Personally, I think a lot of problems could be solved by separating schooling from the government but that will never happen because it's far too important for propaganda campaigns.
You are very fortunate if your son's school does not teach to the test or learn things by rote memorization. Every school I attended had more than their fair share of both. Unfortunately, I do not think the problem is limited to public schools. I was homeschooled through sophomore year and the material was very much strict memorization and/or "teach to the test" (granted, it's really up to the parent on how strict one should follow the curriculum). My experience in the public high school I attended was boring with mostly memorization and not near enough focus on understanding and applying concepts (aka no thinking required). My college experience proved much the same as well, but it did vary class to class more than the others.
I'm sure everyone's got their own experience with these things, but by just looking at how utterly stupid the majority of US citizens are (regardless of how far they went in school), it doesn't take much reasoning to come to the conclusion that our system is broken. What the broken piece(s) is/are may be harder to pinpoint, but I imagine test-oriented and memorization-based teaching (if one can call that teaching) would be good things to start with.
That said, Dick Cheney is a very bad man. I support blaming many things on him, including this.
In the past 5 years, my car has been rummaged through 2 or 3 times and egged twice (once bad enough to damage the finish). Frankly, I didn't even bother reporting any of this because, as you demonstrated quite obviously: "what's the point?" Everyone knows that cops primary two functions are: 1) the illusion of peace keeping/safety, 2) revenue generation.
I am extremely thankful when I see officers patrolling my neighborhood. I want to see more of that: drive around the neighborhoods at night and make sure everything's as it should be. They won't be able to serve up any or many traffic violations, but I can imagine it would make burglars and vandals less likely to strike. Yes, I realize I have no evidence of this. It seems that even the many good cops out there have their hands tied.
P.S.: Hats off to all of the officers out there who serve with honor and integrity. We need more of you!
There's a gross misunderstanding these days how much spread a Shotgun really has. If you're using anything that's reasonable for self defense, such as 04 to 00 buck, it's not much spread. You absolutely have to aim. Also, why would you shoot from the hip in a situation where your nerves already make "what would normally be taking candy from a baby" a hard shot.
I'm much more apt to agree with Stargoat's 5,000 rounds per year (or at least 1,000). The body tends to seize up under pressure and do either 1) absolutely nothing or 2) absolutely the wrong thing... Unless you intentionally spend time and money training yourself to do the "right" thing.
I do not have a shotgun for home defense, but if I did, I would certainly practice with it regularly and take the time to look down the damn sights!
I couldn't agree more. You cannot legislate moral or even social-acceptable behavior. The big concern is, as you said, it doesn't take much of a step to send someone to jail for saying something the masses disagree with. And let's face it, the masses are blatantly retarded these days and completely unaware of what's "really going on" in the world. It's not hard to speak something legitimate and have 80% of your fellow countryman breathing down your neck within seconds (assuming you had such an avenue to get that out).
I guess what I'm getting at is that it doesn't take much of a step to be imprisoned upon voicing discontent with one's government. Scary... and to think, them UK citizens got no guns! (Although let's not be retarded: we all know that wouldn't work anyways.)
Stereotypes often exist for good reason. I never base a final judgement on them, but before I've had a chance to deal with someone individually, as you've said, I assume the stereotype (but it's ready to be overturned at a moment's notice). For me, the exception is racial stereotypes: I don't care much for preforming an opinion of someone based solely of their ethnicity. Except for Jews: they're always so damn good with money... Oh, and Asians: racial advantage with video games for sure.
Really? I've had both varieties grasp for "power" and "authority." It seems often that the women who make it to management are very hardened; this isn't to say that all of them are, but my experience is a good number are. I've had both good and bad experiences with female management, as I have with male management. At least with men, I don't have to play mind games.
I have patience to deal with exactly one woman and that is my wife. If I have to spend that patience and energy on another woman, the less I'll have left for the woman who deserves it most.
Our prisons are so full because they are largely privatized, which in turn lends to the large corporations that own the prisons to lobby for ridiculous mandatory sentencing laws and other things that lead to lots of prisoners. Just like everything else in the United States, money is power and the power is used to get more money and thus, more power. It's a vicious cycle.
Most US citizens either loath how the system works or are oblivious to it and think their votes still do something.
Slashdot Mirror
+1 ... I'm not sure why CherryPy hasn't gained momentum. It is such a fantastic tool.. and because it's an HTTP framework and not a "web framework," it is both easy to learn and does not lock you into what the web framework is designed to do (cough, Django). It's seriously taken the "work" out of web programming, in my mind... well, except for JavaScript being awful.
What do you mean you cannot build a 'modern' webapp using Java? It's done all the time. If memory serves, Gmail is in Java. I also disagree with PHP being the obvious choice. It's a lot like JavaScript: it's everywhere, so people use it. It doesn't change the fact that it's a piece of rubbish. Ruby and Python are much better suited towards modern web development. PHP is glorified template system that is extremely inconsistent and overall ass backwards. The whole notion of mapping a URI to a file is so 1990's.
Python with CherryPy and Jinja2 is my preferred backend system. All of these tools can be picked up in trivial amounts of time and allow for excellent organization and maintainability of code. I'd strongly suggest staying away from PHP.
I absolutely agree with providing citizens means to defend themselves. I'm not a big fan of the Minority Report type of "crime fighting," however. Also, by punishment, I really mean this, to elaborate: If someone has a pattern of running mount/fsck, and kill commands on unwilling individuals, they shouldn't be allowed to participate in society. I'm really not a big fan of the state deciding someone should die (aka, formal death penalty)... I'd be much more in favor of a solution that allows the victim's family members to carry out judgement instead. Yes, I realize this would probably bring problems of its own.
How the hell has this received +3 insightful? I live in the gun-toting US, and I can offer the same anecdotal evidence: I too don't know anyone who has ever faced an armed bad guy.
I have yet to see any evidence that undeniably proves that gun ownership by citizens has a positive or negative impact on public safety. However, that is rather beyond the point. I realize this thread is not about the US, but the US constitution and bill of rights includes a high degree of wisdom and foresight. The 2nd amendment is there not because it is to improve overall public safety, but to ensure that the general populace has the ability to overthrow the government, should it become unbearably corrupt. (I think if the writers of the Constitution had even more foresight, they may have put in some bits about personal rights to own nuclear weapons, to keep up with the arms race. Or perhaps a more realistic solution would be to limit the power of the nation's military: oh wait, that's in there already... weird.)
And besides the constitution stuff, my firearms are tools to keep myself and my family safe. Being safe with a gun is not rocket science. One has to break 2 or 3 "rules" at the same time before one can harm another person accidentally.
And how exactly do you propose to make people not want to commit violent crime? Put drugs in the water supply?
Most regions of the United States already put drugs in the water supply.
You sound like one of those morons who believes that solving the "poverty problem" will eliminate crime, and you couldn't be more wrong. Sure, you might eliminate the non-violent burglars, who are really just a nuisance, but it won't do anything about people who love to commit violence.
I haven't seen any posts here claiming that solving the "poverty problem" will eliminate crime. Reducing poverty will impact the crime rate, but nothing will eliminate crime. Like you said, some people just want to do bad things. There is not much one can do to control other people other than provide punishment for their dirty deeds.
I haven't found the article, but I am pretty sure it was about different criteria that police reported homicide. This won't be completely conclusive, but I've done a little bit of digging into how the UK defines it and how the US defines it.
I realize this isn't very detailed, but perhaps it offers some other possibilities. Statistics are unreliable and governments have a tendency of changing how they collect data to coincide with a recent change to make it appear as if some political move actually had a positive impact.
I came across something a few months back that talked about the reporting methods/classifications for homicides being vastly different between the US and some other nations, including UK. I am trying to find it again; if I do, I will post it here.. if not, well... at least maybe consider the possibility and help me search? :) Some things are difficult to Google for.
LOL, thank you for pointing that out. I was just about to do so. Funny when people link data to prove a point and forget to read it themselves.
Is that wrong? Pretty sure that's how history works and no one seems to complain about that.
the only real solution is education. but that's gonna be a hell of an effort and i don't see how the white house, the department of homeland security, the house of representatives, joe lieberman or a bunch of crap selling fluff spraying corporations could be of any help at that, not to mention they could very well be part of the problem!
No, the answer is not education. I don't care how much education you throw at a head of lettuce, it's still a head of lettuce and it's still about as stupid as the average American. Intelligence is a choice. We don't need to educate the masses; we need to encourage the masses to educate themselves, which is a far more difficult task. Oh, and I'm rather convinced that there's no government program or agency that could possibly accomplish this--in fact, they probably see to it that it maintain status quo.
But 2 + 2 = 5. This kind of thinking will only get you in trouble, comrade. It is unwise to make so much sense.
No, not as in the top 2%. I don't know where this notion comes from that only the top 2% of world's employees are worth having. Hiring the right employee in my mind means someone who will mesh with the rest of the team and who has genuine interest in the job (maybe not every aspect, but parts of it). I would venture to say that the majority of individuals who work under those circumstances are eager to deliver good work and be productive.
Not every corporation needs the top technical people; what they need is diligent people with enough savvy to get the job done. Most things are far from rocket science, but if management stifles the creativity and sucks the joy out of their staff, of course there will be problems. Let's be realistic here: most people do not work highly "prestigious" jobs. The notion that the other 98% must be micromanaged is absurd. I'm not sure if that's what you're saying--I hope not.
Yes, of course. But I think more accurately, your sentence would read: "Some people have a predisposition before they even start a job. A lot of times that attitude can't be seen through an interview."
The majority of people, in my limited experience, are not like this. Most people want to care; they want to make a difference--at least, if they're given ownership and not micromanaged.
Like what's already been said, hiring the right people is key. Besides that, you assume that everyone needs to be told what to do and monitored constantly--and perhaps more importantly, you assume that micromanaging these people will actually solve this "problem."
Perhaps if management didn't assume the majority of their employees are completely irresponsible and child-like in nature, things would be better.
On the other hand, if one took a reasonable approach, the majority of management positions would make little or no sense and thus their existence largely invalidated. Let's face it, in most organizations, management is nothing more than glorified paper pushers, anyways... but they make a lot more money.
I wish I had points to mod this up.
Then how about we remove "directly" from the statement? Personally, I think a lot of problems could be solved by separating schooling from the government but that will never happen because it's far too important for propaganda campaigns.
You are very fortunate if your son's school does not teach to the test or learn things by rote memorization. Every school I attended had more than their fair share of both. Unfortunately, I do not think the problem is limited to public schools. I was homeschooled through sophomore year and the material was very much strict memorization and/or "teach to the test" (granted, it's really up to the parent on how strict one should follow the curriculum). My experience in the public high school I attended was boring with mostly memorization and not near enough focus on understanding and applying concepts (aka no thinking required). My college experience proved much the same as well, but it did vary class to class more than the others.
I'm sure everyone's got their own experience with these things, but by just looking at how utterly stupid the majority of US citizens are (regardless of how far they went in school), it doesn't take much reasoning to come to the conclusion that our system is broken. What the broken piece(s) is/are may be harder to pinpoint, but I imagine test-oriented and memorization-based teaching (if one can call that teaching) would be good things to start with.
That said, Dick Cheney is a very bad man. I support blaming many things on him, including this.
In the past 5 years, my car has been rummaged through 2 or 3 times and egged twice (once bad enough to damage the finish). Frankly, I didn't even bother reporting any of this because, as you demonstrated quite obviously: "what's the point?" Everyone knows that cops primary two functions are: 1) the illusion of peace keeping/safety, 2) revenue generation.
I am extremely thankful when I see officers patrolling my neighborhood. I want to see more of that: drive around the neighborhoods at night and make sure everything's as it should be. They won't be able to serve up any or many traffic violations, but I can imagine it would make burglars and vandals less likely to strike. Yes, I realize I have no evidence of this. It seems that even the many good cops out there have their hands tied.
P.S.: Hats off to all of the officers out there who serve with honor and integrity. We need more of you!
There's a gross misunderstanding these days how much spread a Shotgun really has. If you're using anything that's reasonable for self defense, such as 04 to 00 buck, it's not much spread. You absolutely have to aim. Also, why would you shoot from the hip in a situation where your nerves already make "what would normally be taking candy from a baby" a hard shot.
I'm much more apt to agree with Stargoat's 5,000 rounds per year (or at least 1,000). The body tends to seize up under pressure and do either 1) absolutely nothing or 2) absolutely the wrong thing... Unless you intentionally spend time and money training yourself to do the "right" thing.
I do not have a shotgun for home defense, but if I did, I would certainly practice with it regularly and take the time to look down the damn sights!
I couldn't agree more. You cannot legislate moral or even social-acceptable behavior. The big concern is, as you said, it doesn't take much of a step to send someone to jail for saying something the masses disagree with. And let's face it, the masses are blatantly retarded these days and completely unaware of what's "really going on" in the world. It's not hard to speak something legitimate and have 80% of your fellow countryman breathing down your neck within seconds (assuming you had such an avenue to get that out).
I guess what I'm getting at is that it doesn't take much of a step to be imprisoned upon voicing discontent with one's government. Scary... and to think, them UK citizens got no guns! (Although let's not be retarded: we all know that wouldn't work anyways.)
Stereotypes often exist for good reason. I never base a final judgement on them, but before I've had a chance to deal with someone individually, as you've said, I assume the stereotype (but it's ready to be overturned at a moment's notice). For me, the exception is racial stereotypes: I don't care much for preforming an opinion of someone based solely of their ethnicity. Except for Jews: they're always so damn good with money... Oh, and Asians: racial advantage with video games for sure.
Really? I've had both varieties grasp for "power" and "authority." It seems often that the women who make it to management are very hardened; this isn't to say that all of them are, but my experience is a good number are. I've had both good and bad experiences with female management, as I have with male management. At least with men, I don't have to play mind games.
I have patience to deal with exactly one woman and that is my wife. If I have to spend that patience and energy on another woman, the less I'll have left for the woman who deserves it most.
Hmm, appears you're right about the percentage. Not sure why I thought it was higher (although 10% is still significant).
Our prisons are so full because they are largely privatized, which in turn lends to the large corporations that own the prisons to lobby for ridiculous mandatory sentencing laws and other things that lead to lots of prisoners. Just like everything else in the United States, money is power and the power is used to get more money and thus, more power. It's a vicious cycle. Most US citizens either loath how the system works or are oblivious to it and think their votes still do something.