Ah yes. Life sucks. I guess that was my point. What I mean is, life sucks, sometimes people can try their best and still couldn't get themselves out of poverty. The issue I took with your OP is the tone that seems to suggest if one can't get themselves out of poverty, its their own damn fault (because hey, I did it, so everyone can, right?) -- which, in some cases, it isn't. It's just that life sucks.
Still, I don't mean to say that it's not their own responsibility to help themselves or that the government should provide everything.
I've never experienced poverty before, but to claim that pulling oneself out of poverty is a merely matter of determination and hard work, trivializes the situations in some of the cases, IMHO.
It's almost a version of "let them eat cake", just that in your statement it is like "let them work harder". Could it be that for some people they have worked as hard as they could, and still live below the poverty line? The fact that some people have done it, doesn't mean everyone can.
Nothing against your optimism and particularly a pointer to venues that might help, it's just something I wanted to let out....
Those are creations of economic fluctuations and are just temporary
That will sound great to the generations that never had a stable full time job. At least their kids might! It's not a problem that warrants a solution when it only persists for a few decades, right?
That seems a bit extreme to assume all companies need to go that far. If I opened a small hardware shop on the corner of the street, and wanted to have an email address, do I hire a whole IT department to set up an email address for me?
Re:If by "looking good", you mean "looking like iO
on
Inside OS X Mavericks
·
· Score: 1
They'd call it the Stockholm syndrome.
I kid. I switch between OSX and Linux daily, and on OSX I have natural scrolling enabled. And I use a mouse with a scrollwheel... It feels fine. I don't really think about it, I guess my brain is used to switching.
You don't have to be a genius to do 99.99% of the work in the world.
When computers and automated machines get more intelligent, you will need to be a genius to do most of the work in the world.
The reason this time it's different from the luddites is that this time computers *are* capable of being smarter than the average dumbass. I thought on Slashdot this crucial point would be obvious.
There is an infinite number of things for people to do.
Tell that to the economies that are experiencing 10+% unemployment. Tell that to Spain and Greece where their youth unemployment rate is greater than 50%. Tell me that when you get unemployed.
It's easy to have enough "jobs" for everyone. Give anyone without a job a teaspoon and point them to a ditch that needs digging or a hole that needs filling.
Automated trucks and machinery does that for a fraction of the human labor cost.
Who is going to pay them to fill up a hole with a spoon?
It's a personal view, but I don't really interpret statistics to be applicable to any individual case, because there are always circumstances that would point one way or the other. I've just had a 9 month "long distance" relationship which worked out fine (I moved back), and while people say it usually doesn't work, I've never had a doubt, because I knew myself and I knew my SO, and we're not quite the average sort of person. So, I did wager this so called "25% chance", apparently it's closer to a supposedly 50% now.
But yeah I get your point. It might add up to 25% if you look at it that way. Still, 50% isn't too bad. Most people probably wished 50% of their relationships work out -- I mean, supposedly you just need to have ONE that works in your whole life, right?
I see hundreds more dead children once a war is started.
The problem with interventionism is that the actions may lead to a worse result compared to inaction. Especially when the US has a horrible historical track record when it intervenes.
It's funny how pictures of innocent dead people will inspire a peaceful country to go and kill more innocent people. Sure, some of them might be branded as enemy combatants or terrorists or whatever, but in an unjust war, they're no less innocent than the dead children you're seeing. And of course, the civilian casualties that you people try to wipe away as a necessarily evil. I mean, it's necessary to revenge the deaths of some hundreds children, right? Who cares that half of the country the US invades is now even more of a living hell hole?
I'm sure every major power around the world has plans to attack nations they consider a potential threat
No, just as I do not have plans to murder people I consider a potential threat. Of course, the serial murderer may think otherwise, but that is delusion thinking.
I'm normally not a fan of conspiracy theories, but in this case I wouldn't be surprised if the US actually supplied or encouraged the rebels to use the chemical weapons, or planted agents and used them directly.
I mean, last time they failed to find WMDs, this time they might have learnt the lesson, with a twist.
I only speak for myself, but sporadic (eg. weekly) and short (10 minutes?) phone calls and occasional exchange of short messages in Whatsapp was sufficient for us.
Needless to say there was lots of trust and understanding, and perhaps the fact that we threw away the (IMHO) childish notion that lovers need to feel the constant presence of each other. (blasphemy for some, I know...)
This goes directly against the other end of the advice spectrum of holding intimacy and sex above all else in a relationship. They're probably also right, in which case you got to ask yourself what your relationship is based on.
There's nothing wrong per se in having a relationship based primarily on sex, on the feeling of intimacy, on promises of exclusivity, promises of staying together, whatever. In which case they're absolutely right -- if those assumptions break once you're 1000 miles away, it's over.
But it really depends on the couple. If playing games together helps, good for you.
There's a certain pattern of behavioral change (from anecdotal experience, I'll admit) when people grow old. Generally speaking, they become more affixed to their old ways, less flexible, and more cranky about having to change.
You might be different -- if you're already 50+ and still live up to your words about trying new things and taking risks -- but the majority of the population aren't like that.
Besides, it's not like there's a serious risk of baby shortage -- the only reason we don't want to grow old is not because of any greater high ideal, but that we fear death.
People have done so many crazy irrational things to try to cheat death. So far, among a few billion people, ZERO have succeeded. If only I had a dollar for every person that thought they could be immortal....
Since when was it about spreading pinko hippie ideology with GPL?
(Is that a trick question?) Ever since RMS came up with the idea. He never wanted others to use his code unless they bought his ideology (i.e. releasing source with the GPL). Allegedly he intentionally crippled the design of GCC so that other people can't easily work around the license. Ideology over software, it was with us all along.
If you never read the works of the "priests of science", you aren't qualified to say that they were wrong, or they have missed an obvious solution to a decades old problem.
Unless, of course, you actually solve the problem. But you're not going to get much respect by randomly throwing around some terminology from high school science classes and saying you're better than all those people who had spent years and years of studying the subject matter.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah yes. Life sucks. I guess that was my point. What I mean is, life sucks, sometimes people can try their best and still couldn't get themselves out of poverty. The issue I took with your OP is the tone that seems to suggest if one can't get themselves out of poverty, its their own damn fault (because hey, I did it, so everyone can, right?) -- which, in some cases, it isn't. It's just that life sucks.
Still, I don't mean to say that it's not their own responsibility to help themselves or that the government should provide everything.
If you see a woman being raped, is it your duty to help her, or is it your duty to call the cops?
The US is basically saying they are justified in raping the rapist in this situation. For great justice, right?
I've never experienced poverty before, but to claim that pulling oneself out of poverty is a merely matter of determination and hard work, trivializes the situations in some of the cases, IMHO.
It's almost a version of "let them eat cake", just that in your statement it is like "let them work harder". Could it be that for some people they have worked as hard as they could, and still live below the poverty line? The fact that some people have done it, doesn't mean everyone can.
Nothing against your optimism and particularly a pointer to venues that might help, it's just something I wanted to let out....
Computers can't even read captchas
Neither can I with good reliability.
Those are creations of economic fluctuations and are just temporary
That will sound great to the generations that never had a stable full time job. At least their kids might! It's not a problem that warrants a solution when it only persists for a few decades, right?
That seems a bit extreme to assume all companies need to go that far. If I opened a small hardware shop on the corner of the street, and wanted to have an email address, do I hire a whole IT department to set up an email address for me?
How much did they pay you to write this?
They'd call it the Stockholm syndrome.
I kid. I switch between OSX and Linux daily, and on OSX I have natural scrolling enabled. And I use a mouse with a scrollwheel... It feels fine. I don't really think about it, I guess my brain is used to switching.
That's just bullshit.
You don't have to be a genius to do 99.99% of the work in the world.
When computers and automated machines get more intelligent, you will need to be a genius to do most of the work in the world.
The reason this time it's different from the luddites is that this time computers *are* capable of being smarter than the average dumbass. I thought on Slashdot this crucial point would be obvious.
There is an infinite number of things for people to do.
Tell that to the economies that are experiencing 10+% unemployment. Tell that to Spain and Greece where their youth unemployment rate is greater than 50%. Tell me that when you get unemployed.
It's easy to have enough "jobs" for everyone. Give anyone without a job a teaspoon and point them to a ditch that needs digging or a hole that needs filling.
Automated trucks and machinery does that for a fraction of the human labor cost.
Who is going to pay them to fill up a hole with a spoon?
It's a personal view, but I don't really interpret statistics to be applicable to any individual case, because there are always circumstances that would point one way or the other. I've just had a 9 month "long distance" relationship which worked out fine (I moved back), and while people say it usually doesn't work, I've never had a doubt, because I knew myself and I knew my SO, and we're not quite the average sort of person. So, I did wager this so called "25% chance", apparently it's closer to a supposedly 50% now.
But yeah I get your point. It might add up to 25% if you look at it that way. Still, 50% isn't too bad. Most people probably wished 50% of their relationships work out -- I mean, supposedly you just need to have ONE that works in your whole life, right?
I see hundreds more dead children once a war is started.
The problem with interventionism is that the actions may lead to a worse result compared to inaction. Especially when the US has a horrible historical track record when it intervenes.
It's funny how pictures of innocent dead people will inspire a peaceful country to go and kill more innocent people. Sure, some of them might be branded as enemy combatants or terrorists or whatever, but in an unjust war, they're no less innocent than the dead children you're seeing. And of course, the civilian casualties that you people try to wipe away as a necessarily evil. I mean, it's necessary to revenge the deaths of some hundreds children, right? Who cares that half of the country the US invades is now even more of a living hell hole?
I'm sure every major power around the world has plans to attack nations they consider a potential threat
No, just as I do not have plans to murder people I consider a potential threat. Of course, the serial murderer may think otherwise, but that is delusion thinking.
I'm normally not a fan of conspiracy theories, but in this case I wouldn't be surprised if the US actually supplied or encouraged the rebels to use the chemical weapons, or planted agents and used them directly.
I mean, last time they failed to find WMDs, this time they might have learnt the lesson, with a twist.
The US in this case is trying very hard to avoid becoming involved.
Headlines: US Forces Ready To Strike Syria If Ordered
Try harder?
Two new UIDs arguing over who was first.
I was. There were 400 thousand people before me, but still.
Now get off Slashdot (our lawn).
Settle in court if you wish. We'll bring the popcorn.
I only speak for myself, but sporadic (eg. weekly) and short (10 minutes?) phone calls and occasional exchange of short messages in Whatsapp was sufficient for us.
Needless to say there was lots of trust and understanding, and perhaps the fact that we threw away the (IMHO) childish notion that lovers need to feel the constant presence of each other. (blasphemy for some, I know...)
This goes directly against the other end of the advice spectrum of holding intimacy and sex above all else in a relationship. They're probably also right, in which case you got to ask yourself what your relationship is based on.
There's nothing wrong per se in having a relationship based primarily on sex, on the feeling of intimacy, on promises of exclusivity, promises of staying together, whatever. In which case they're absolutely right -- if those assumptions break once you're 1000 miles away, it's over.
But it really depends on the couple. If playing games together helps, good for you.
The statistics show that only about half of long distances work
The statistics show that half of all marriages (allegedly) end in divorce too. So that's about right.
All *your* wonderful brain power and effort going to a rant on slashdot about a guy and his personal project.
Interesting... where do you live?
No, you just iterate until it works. (If you have the will and the money to persevere that is)
Name me a mainstream programming language which has only been intentionally backwards incompatible *once* in its 20 year history.
I can only think of C.
How old are you? 20? 30?
There's a certain pattern of behavioral change (from anecdotal experience, I'll admit) when people grow old. Generally speaking, they become more affixed to their old ways, less flexible, and more cranky about having to change.
You might be different -- if you're already 50+ and still live up to your words about trying new things and taking risks -- but the majority of the population aren't like that.
Besides, it's not like there's a serious risk of baby shortage -- the only reason we don't want to grow old is not because of any greater high ideal, but that we fear death.
People have done so many crazy irrational things to try to cheat death. So far, among a few billion people, ZERO have succeeded. If only I had a dollar for every person that thought they could be immortal....
Since when was it about spreading pinko hippie ideology with GPL?
(Is that a trick question?) Ever since RMS came up with the idea. He never wanted others to use his code unless they bought his ideology (i.e. releasing source with the GPL). Allegedly he intentionally crippled the design of GCC so that other people can't easily work around the license. Ideology over software, it was with us all along.
We can therefore conclude that Redhat bans their employees from reading Slashdot.
If you never read the works of the "priests of science", you aren't qualified to say that they were wrong, or they have missed an obvious solution to a decades old problem.
Unless, of course, you actually solve the problem. But you're not going to get much respect by randomly throwing around some terminology from high school science classes and saying you're better than all those people who had spent years and years of studying the subject matter.