If you're stupid enough as to assume that as a constant, then in your world, certainly.
Note that this isn't merely "social conservativism" - it's logic. More than one parent in the home means more attention paid to the kid and to what the kid is doing. More than one parent in the home also means the potential for dual income as needed (and no, not two high-powered career jobs either), thus redundancy in finances and other critical components of the household.
Given that you went AC, I suspect you cannot stand by your convictions, so I won't ask you the obvious question of whether or not you agree to such things.
On the marriage bit, I was looking to preserve dual-parent households. How that happens would have to be from a change (or reversion?) of societal and cultural norms.
As for mentally disturbed folks, perhaps an easier means to commit and restrain them from society (as opposed to simply medicating them)?
It's not easy to define, let alone do, but I think the source lies in culture at large, and not in any proclaimed panacea-banning like guns, video games, or whatever.
Lately they've been doing gift certificates to grocery stores and such, but completely forgetting that money is fungible - money I suddenly didn't have to spend on groceries is freed up for buying, well whatever else, including guns. That's the thing, though. Unless the trade-in doesn't involve money or any tangible good, it become a fungible item.
I think that the anti-gun lobbies and authorities who host these things could have benefited from consulting any divorce lawyer when it comes to the subject of all things fungible, no?
Funny part is, no banning or restriction of any one thing, or even combination thereof, will curtail mass violence.
Removing every firearm from the planet won't prevent future mass violence. Removing every violent cultural item (video, music, books, etc) won't prevent it either.
Long story short... it's going to require a massive cultural shift. Problem is, too many people stand to make too much profit off of not doing that. News media will blame the viewers without stopping to think that they themselves created the viewership. Hollywood will do the same, and so one down the line, all forgetting that they all participated in building that lowest-common-denominator which we have today. The NRA will of course defensively want to keep every type of firearm legal, as they're too busy staring at the slippery slope of rights-curtailment and not liking what they see, but neglecting to see that sometimes maybe some folks don't need the things. Overly-busy parents aren't going to want to curtail their lifestyle and actually pay close attention to WTF their kid is watching, playing, and reading - especially if those kids are teenagers. Sometimes those parents can't slow down (e.g. the single working parent) - overall, this is going to require a strengthening of marriage (though not by law, but by culture).
As you can see, there are too many people won either like the status quo, or hate it but fear changing it (especially if that change introduces responsibility). So I fully expect a whole lot of nothing to be done at the least, or a lot of the wrong things done at the worst.
Meanwhile, some as-yet-anonymous sad loser of a kid quietly designs a bomb that will utilize the school's natural gas line...
I see mugshots, wannabe presidential candidates, lawyers, dentists, babies, and even politicians. There's even other tech-oriented folks in the pile. Every conceivable race, creed, and color.
Dude - you do know that Mountain Meadows was over 150 years ago, right?
I lived in Salt Lake for about a decade. I'm not LDS, nor was I ever. Aside from social isolation (due to the fact that most social activities center around the local 'Ward'), and a slow-motion barrage of missionaries who wanted to interrupt my beer/smoke breaks to talk to me about that book written by Mr. Smith, I was pretty much treated in a friendly manner.
Now career-wise, there comes a point where a temple recommend is pretty much required to move ahead in most (local) circles, but otherwise they're harmless to live among.
That doesn't sound any different from a Democratic voter living in a predominantly "red state" area, these days.
Or vice-versa - Seattle, Portland, NYC, parts of SanFran, LA (esp. Hollywood)...
But, you know, get that ideological hate on, instead of recognizing the fact that any place that is homogeneous is going to favor those like them, and tend to exclude those who aren't.
Big difference. Free speech can not cause aircraft instruments to malfunction and the plane to fly into the ground killing hundreds of people.
Freedom of speech, if misused, creates impressive death tolls on their own. By way of example, the death toll in Jonestown was larger (approx. 909) than any single plane crash in history that you can name. The closest in death toll is the KLM aircraft disaster at Tenerife, which killed 535.
I've no love for the wireless industry, especially in its current incarnation as the ATT/Verizon/etc oligarchy. OTOH, I do object to the idea that one must prove a perfect negative in order to do something even partially useful about the insanity that accompanies air travel these days. Especially when you consider that the pilots are using iPads instead of paper maps nowadays.
This isn't true at all. Netbooks were made possible by super low-power, low-cost Intel Atom CPUs.
...which gave you all the actual horsepower of a mid-range Pentium 4 (benchmarks be damned). Intel had to make compromises somewhere in order to get the longevity, and performance took the biggest hit. That was GP's point: It wasn't that they were packing actual P4's with RAMBUS in there**, but that they packed in 2008-9's equivalent to that into the things.
I used an HP Mini for awhile - worked well enough for what it did (best described as a 'glorified SSH terminal and occasional WiFi detecting device'), but I damned sure wouldn't want to inflict it on someone as their main machine.
** good lord - the heat factor alone would've burned the skin right off your lap...
This might be shocking news to you, but given our global economy, a civil war here would proceed to wreck the economies of practically everywhere else in the world.
Kinda hard to fear-monger if you insist on bringing out logic and fact, you know.
Besides, what makes better eyeball-grabbing media headlines and budgetary attention?
* "NOAA may have to cut back a bit due to scheduled 8% budget cuts from the fiscal cliff" - or - * "NOAA sez the fiscal cliff will kill us all in a wall of hurricane water! AIEEEEE!"
Hell, if you think about it, almost every government agency out there has similar tales of dire prediction: - TSA says terrorists will win if they don't get more money - SSA says old people will be forced to eat dog food if they don't get more money - HHS says the poor will die and be thrown to the streets if they don't get more money - DOD says we'll lose wars if they don't get more money etc, etc...
Funny part is, I'm willing to wager that all of these departments could stand a massive cut of fundage if they just got rid of the middle-management bloat, and stopped embracing that stupid '7:00 to 4:30' mentality that most gov't employees seem to worship.
Wow - you may want to ease up on that koolaid - it'll rot your teeth as well as your brain.
PS: Watching what live on TV? If there were an actual governmental overthrow (outside of your fevered dreams, that is), I doubt you'd be laughing, or watching television.
Something to consider... cubicle farms themselves are starting to die.
In my current job, I telecommute most of the week. I live within literal spitting distance of the Pacific Ocean, so on nice days I wander out to the edge of my WiFi signal on the beach itself, snag a signal at the coffee shop in town, or basically do my work anywhere I can get online for a VPN hookup. Still have cubes, but they're open now, and most of the time in the office, I drag the laptop from desk to conference room, and sometimes out to a common area in a (semi-) comfy reclining chair for informal bull sessions.
In my last job, they ditched all the cubicles and replaced them with an open desk environment - even the managerial offices had massive glass walls. If you wanted privacy (e.g. sorting sensitive data, seeing the spam filter email feeds, etc), you swiped a conference room or you hid in the server room. Only the CEO got an office that a casual office drone couldn't see into.
Previous to that, I worked for Intel, who launched the "How We Work" initiative, which began cutting the cube walls down to just above desktop-height. No idea how that turned out, but I can see it being pushed...
Long story short, the typical cube farm is either evolving, or is being killed off completely (depending on company culture).
For a moment there, I thought you were talking about Salman Rushdie, but then I realized that he just wrote an unfunny 'let's stir some shit up' book, not a movie.
My bad.
So wait, which one do you think deserved to die again?
(I think I still have Satanic Verses in the bookshelf somewhere, just that I can't be arsed to crack it open.)
... try being a right-leaning prof in a large, prestigious college (or in Hollywood), or a skeptic of $prevailingOpinionOnHighlyPoliticizedTopic in the scientific community.
Free speech is free speech, either you have it or you don't, and if you think because it was written ages ago gives it a pass? Well plenty of writings equally old that can let me make movies that will make Schizophreniac 2 look like an episode of the Teletubbies.
You missed the part where I said he had the perfect right to display it under Canadian law (since he was, you know, in Canada...)
You missed the point (whether intentionally or out of ignorance, I leave to the reader):
It isn't what something will do, but why it was made:
* "Couture" designed his movies specifically to give sick freaks a hard-on. Nothing more, nothing otherwise. I defy anyone to prove otherwise. * Passion of The Christ was designed to be an un-filtered look at what Christ had to go through, and was engineered to emphasize the suffering and the resurrection, so that adherants (and potential adherants) would empathize with Christ, and know what He went through on your spiritual behalf. Whether you do appreciate/empathize or not is up to you, but that is the intent, as originally written in a ~2000-year-old story.
There's a big diff there. You cannot dismiss intent, either - otherwise you end up equating Renaissance artwork with a typical pr0n mag. Yeah they both have naked people, but only one of the two was designed to generate hard-ons. Used to be that it was a mark of mental maturity to know and appreciate the difference; I hope things haven't changed by too much by now.
As for TFA? This "Couture" guy may be a sick freak, but legally, he has the perfect right to portray whatever he wants within the bounds of Canadian speech laws. Since Canada isn't the US, shouting "First Amendment!!!11!!" won't apply.
...to say nothing of the fact that instead of writing a program from scratch, you're forced to maintain others' programs instead, or to add what you write to existing (fundamentally crap, poorly-maintained) code.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're stupid enough as to assume that as a constant, then in your world, certainly.
Note that this isn't merely "social conservativism" - it's logic. More than one parent in the home means more attention paid to the kid and to what the kid is doing. More than one parent in the home also means the potential for dual income as needed (and no, not two high-powered career jobs either), thus redundancy in finances and other critical components of the household.
Given that you went AC, I suspect you cannot stand by your convictions, so I won't ask you the obvious question of whether or not you agree to such things.
On the marriage bit, I was looking to preserve dual-parent households. How that happens would have to be from a change (or reversion?) of societal and cultural norms.
As for mentally disturbed folks, perhaps an easier means to commit and restrain them from society (as opposed to simply medicating them)?
It's not easy to define, let alone do, but I think the source lies in culture at large, and not in any proclaimed panacea-banning like guns, video games, or whatever.
Lately they've been doing gift certificates to grocery stores and such, but completely forgetting that money is fungible - money I suddenly didn't have to spend on groceries is freed up for buying, well whatever else, including guns. That's the thing, though. Unless the trade-in doesn't involve money or any tangible good, it become a fungible item.
I think that the anti-gun lobbies and authorities who host these things could have benefited from consulting any divorce lawyer when it comes to the subject of all things fungible, no?
Funny part is, no banning or restriction of any one thing, or even combination thereof, will curtail mass violence.
Removing every firearm from the planet won't prevent future mass violence. Removing every violent cultural item (video, music, books, etc) won't prevent it either.
Long story short... it's going to require a massive cultural shift. Problem is, too many people stand to make too much profit off of not doing that. News media will blame the viewers without stopping to think that they themselves created the viewership. Hollywood will do the same, and so one down the line, all forgetting that they all participated in building that lowest-common-denominator which we have today. The NRA will of course defensively want to keep every type of firearm legal, as they're too busy staring at the slippery slope of rights-curtailment and not liking what they see, but neglecting to see that sometimes maybe some folks don't need the things. Overly-busy parents aren't going to want to curtail their lifestyle and actually pay close attention to WTF their kid is watching, playing, and reading - especially if those kids are teenagers. Sometimes those parents can't slow down (e.g. the single working parent) - overall, this is going to require a strengthening of marriage (though not by law, but by culture).
As you can see, there are too many people won either like the status quo, or hate it but fear changing it (especially if that change introduces responsibility). So I fully expect a whole lot of nothing to be done at the least, or a lot of the wrong things done at the worst.
Meanwhile, some as-yet-anonymous sad loser of a kid quietly designs a bomb that will utilize the school's natural gas line...
Mine is better still. A quick check of my name shows that, well...
I'm not even on the first three pages in here...
I see mugshots, wannabe presidential candidates, lawyers, dentists, babies, and even politicians. There's even other tech-oriented folks in the pile. Every conceivable race, creed, and color.
Dear HR drone: Umm, yeah. Good luck with that. :)
There is a cure for that...
Use Facebook for all your personal crap, and LinkedIn for all your professional crap.
Or, just tell Facebook to go /sbin/fsck themselves and create two accounts anyway (one is accessed via Chrome, the other via Firefox, or whatever).
Dude - you do know that Mountain Meadows was over 150 years ago, right?
I lived in Salt Lake for about a decade. I'm not LDS, nor was I ever. Aside from social isolation (due to the fact that most social activities center around the local 'Ward'), and a slow-motion barrage of missionaries who wanted to interrupt my beer/smoke breaks to talk to me about that book written by Mr. Smith, I was pretty much treated in a friendly manner.
Now career-wise, there comes a point where a temple recommend is pretty much required to move ahead in most (local) circles, but otherwise they're harmless to live among.
That doesn't sound any different from a Democratic voter living in a predominantly "red state" area, these days.
Or vice-versa - Seattle, Portland, NYC, parts of SanFran, LA (esp. Hollywood)...
But, you know, get that ideological hate on, instead of recognizing the fact that any place that is homogeneous is going to favor those like them, and tend to exclude those who aren't.
Big difference. Free speech can not cause aircraft instruments to malfunction and the plane to fly into the ground killing hundreds of people.
Freedom of speech, if misused, creates impressive death tolls on their own. By way of example, the death toll in Jonestown was larger (approx. 909) than any single plane crash in history that you can name. The closest in death toll is the KLM aircraft disaster at Tenerife, which killed 535.
I've no love for the wireless industry, especially in its current incarnation as the ATT/Verizon/etc oligarchy. OTOH, I do object to the idea that one must prove a perfect negative in order to do something even partially useful about the insanity that accompanies air travel these days. Especially when you consider that the pilots are using iPads instead of paper maps nowadays.
This isn't true at all. Netbooks were made possible by super low-power, low-cost Intel Atom CPUs.
...which gave you all the actual horsepower of a mid-range Pentium 4 (benchmarks be damned). Intel had to make compromises somewhere in order to get the longevity, and performance took the biggest hit. That was GP's point: It wasn't that they were packing actual P4's with RAMBUS in there**, but that they packed in 2008-9's equivalent to that into the things.
I used an HP Mini for awhile - worked well enough for what it did (best described as a 'glorified SSH terminal and occasional WiFi detecting device'), but I damned sure wouldn't want to inflict it on someone as their main machine.
** good lord - the heat factor alone would've burned the skin right off your lap...
Bad call - requiring one to prove evidence of absence in order to exercise a little freedom (no matter how frivolous) is a bad precedent.
Otherwise, you get something like 'Prove that you will never misuse your speech before we allow you the right to it.'
This might be shocking news to you, but given our global economy, a civil war here would proceed to wreck the economies of practically everywhere else in the world.
I stand by my statement, kid.
Kinda hard to fear-monger if you insist on bringing out logic and fact, you know.
Besides, what makes better eyeball-grabbing media headlines and budgetary attention?
* "NOAA may have to cut back a bit due to scheduled 8% budget cuts from the fiscal cliff"
- or -
* "NOAA sez the fiscal cliff will kill us all in a wall of hurricane water! AIEEEEE!"
Hell, if you think about it, almost every government agency out there has similar tales of dire prediction:
- TSA says terrorists will win if they don't get more money
- SSA says old people will be forced to eat dog food if they don't get more money
- HHS says the poor will die and be thrown to the streets if they don't get more money
- DOD says we'll lose wars if they don't get more money
etc, etc...
Funny part is, I'm willing to wager that all of these departments could stand a massive cut of fundage if they just got rid of the middle-management bloat, and stopped embracing that stupid '7:00 to 4:30' mentality that most gov't employees seem to worship.
Wow - you may want to ease up on that koolaid - it'll rot your teeth as well as your brain.
PS: Watching what live on TV? If there were an actual governmental overthrow (outside of your fevered dreams, that is), I doubt you'd be laughing, or watching television.
Gabe's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory
(Seriously, we've known about this since what, Quake 2 days?)
The shills and various other MS mouthpieces are getting skittish.
Betting pool is open as to when the likes of Ed Bott starts bad-mouthing it in a big way...
He's also a former adviser to Enron.
Take from it what you will.
Something to consider... cubicle farms themselves are starting to die.
In my current job, I telecommute most of the week. I live within literal spitting distance of the Pacific Ocean, so on nice days I wander out to the edge of my WiFi signal on the beach itself, snag a signal at the coffee shop in town, or basically do my work anywhere I can get online for a VPN hookup. Still have cubes, but they're open now, and most of the time in the office, I drag the laptop from desk to conference room, and sometimes out to a common area in a (semi-) comfy reclining chair for informal bull sessions.
In my last job, they ditched all the cubicles and replaced them with an open desk environment - even the managerial offices had massive glass walls. If you wanted privacy (e.g. sorting sensitive data, seeing the spam filter email feeds, etc), you swiped a conference room or you hid in the server room. Only the CEO got an office that a casual office drone couldn't see into.
Previous to that, I worked for Intel, who launched the "How We Work" initiative, which began cutting the cube walls down to just above desktop-height. No idea how that turned out, but I can see it being pushed...
Long story short, the typical cube farm is either evolving, or is being killed off completely (depending on company culture).
the problem was between the left ear and the right ear of religious whackjob killers. they will kill again for no reason
So, umm, what valid reason did these guys have then?
For a moment there, I thought you were talking about Salman Rushdie, but then I realized that he just wrote an unfunny 'let's stir some shit up' book, not a movie.
My bad.
So wait, which one do you think deserved to die again?
(I think I still have Satanic Verses in the bookshelf somewhere, just that I can't be arsed to crack it open.)
... try being a right-leaning prof in a large, prestigious college (or in Hollywood), or a skeptic of $prevailingOpinionOnHighlyPoliticizedTopic in the scientific community.
Just something to keep in mind.
Free speech is free speech, either you have it or you don't, and if you think because it was written ages ago gives it a pass? Well plenty of writings equally old that can let me make movies that will make Schizophreniac 2 look like an episode of the Teletubbies.
You missed the part where I said he had the perfect right to display it under Canadian law (since he was, you know, in Canada...)
You missed the point (whether intentionally or out of ignorance, I leave to the reader):
It isn't what something will do, but why it was made:
* "Couture" designed his movies specifically to give sick freaks a hard-on. Nothing more, nothing otherwise. I defy anyone to prove otherwise.
* Passion of The Christ was designed to be an un-filtered look at what Christ had to go through, and was engineered to emphasize the suffering and the resurrection, so that adherants (and potential adherants) would empathize with Christ, and know what He went through on your spiritual behalf. Whether you do appreciate/empathize or not is up to you, but that is the intent, as originally written in a ~2000-year-old story.
There's a big diff there. You cannot dismiss intent, either - otherwise you end up equating Renaissance artwork with a typical pr0n mag. Yeah they both have naked people, but only one of the two was designed to generate hard-ons. Used to be that it was a mark of mental maturity to know and appreciate the difference; I hope things haven't changed by too much by now.
As for TFA? This "Couture" guy may be a sick freak, but legally, he has the perfect right to portray whatever he wants within the bounds of Canadian speech laws. Since Canada isn't the US, shouting "First Amendment!!!11!!" won't apply.
So you had variables named like:
$m, $mm, $mmm, $mmmm, $mmmmm, $mmmmmm,
Oh, that's from the Crash Test Dummies Style Sheet. :)
(no, really...)
...to say nothing of the fact that instead of writing a program from scratch, you're forced to maintain others' programs instead, or to add what you write to existing (fundamentally crap, poorly-maintained) code.
Yay?