Those aren't "welfare" items but rather items of civilized society.
I would argue that a society with 0 social assistance programs is not a very civilized society. I think you underestimate the amount of order and civility of society that stems in/directly from people being able to get help sometimes when they need it and not go down in flames because of a single adverse event in their lives. That is the whole problem with this point of view: the societal benefits of welfare are often 2+ degrees of separation from the investment, so you assume they do not exist and just whine that you had to pay some tax money and got nothing for it in immediate returns. If you treat it like a transaction where you expect to get an instant return of 10 units of quality of life per $100 of tax money then you are oversimplifying, and I'm not surprised you don't see the value. It is, nonetheless valuable.
What, and not immediately turn every discussion into slinging reductionist hyperbolic idiocy at each other? Unthinkable, sir! If I actually have to consider the merits of each argument rather than just looking for the (R) or (D) next to the name, how will I find time to write my ignorant diatribes in comment sections?
The creation of welfare states are the greatest threat to freedom because the actions of one person now affect the pocketbook of another
And the alternative, where the slightest hiccup in the life of somebody living on the poverty line causes their shit to enter an unrecoverable downward spiral - that doesn't adversely affect our society or economy at all, eh?
But this is greatly exacerbated in a state full of subsidies and other shared burdens.
Christ I am sick of hearing this short-term thinking bullshit. We all share burdens - no way around it. The question is whether you want to acknowledge that reality and try to deal with it sensibly, or pretend it doesn't exist and that you don't live in an interconnected society that benefits from increases in the general quality of everyone's lives. Just because you take the welfare line items out of the tax budget doesn't mean you are not paying for the costs of perpetual poverty and the effects of an ever increasing number of permanently disenfranchised people. You are, in fact, being the smoker in your example - making a selfish, stupid decision to defer positive preventative measures and instead rely on ludicrously expensive and ineffective disaster control.
Me, I prefer to share the burden in the form of proactive support. I, as a person who would like to not be sociopath, consider the term 'shared burden' to be a positive indication of a society recognizing its moral duty to at least try to promote dignity for the least of its people. Are these programs riddled with issues, run by fallible humans and taken advantage of by lazy fucks? You bet. But look who cashes in on the alternative do-nothing approach: predatory banks, prisons, overcharging pharma / insurance companies, etc. (oh gee, and who are same guys putting the screws to the rest of us because of their 'increasing costs'?). And what do we get for the investment in the your approach? Fuckall but more misery.
So no thanks teabaggers, I will happily give $100 today to assist a poor/sick/uneducated person in the hopes that they will improve their life rather than piss it away into the machines of our economy that run on suffering. Maybe that person squanders that assistance, maybe they don't - but I can be damn sure that the alternative is a wasted investment.
Sorry, your point is salient but I have to interject with silliness - I was speed scrolling and barely skimming each post, and those 2 words in conjunction made my brain trip on it's own shoelaces and do a faceplant. Long shot joke - if anybody has read 'Lexicon' by Max Barry you know what I am talking about.
cunning politician
God, do we still have any of those? Ever read transcripts of debates from 100+ years ago, when education and diction were prerequisites for entry into (or better yet, just attributes of) the political class, and just want to cry? I mean even when one of them is arguing a horrible position, they are at least doing it with a delicacy of language and (misguided) thought that I could just kiss them on the mouth.
Sure, if you want to make the massive oversimplification of saying that time is a 'dimension' just like the other 3. Just because you have seen it on an X axis doesn't make it part of a simple coordinate system.
Whahhuh? Nobody is looking for a 'reason' (by which you seem to mean purpose) - they are trying to understand how this system works. Granted, the headline should say 'how' not 'why', but did you really think the question being asked was some philosophical one of design and purpose rather than attempting to define the physical mechanics, you know, for science?
'security clearance' is not exactly a rare thing to be qualified for, and generally seems to just mean you have not committed and do not seem likely to commit any financial or cyber crimes. I have one (plus frequent background and credit checks) for each project I am on, and my past is far from spotless. I think my shit is just not the shit they are worried about. Maybe you are working on some secret squirrel shit for DoD and yours is really shiny, but the 10 or so I have were not hard to come by.
That's why I added the word 'contract'. My point is that, reviewing the case studies on their site, they all look boring as shit to work on if one has any interest in writing software that actually does something of significance or in a field that is interesting. No disrespect if that's your thing, but I find it hard to grasp being passionate in a medium and not caring at all about where you apply it. If I was an awesome graphic designer I don't think I would be looking to work on Target inserts in the Sunday paper, even if it did pay well.
Maybe I just work in a strange niche industry, but I have never seen source code be a deliverable of a project. I get paid to deliver solutions, not hand over the IP.
I don't know, maybe I am in the minority on this, but the idea of going from gig to gig applying the same skillset and technologies to different, simple projects that are essentially siblings in complexity as opposed to unlocking new nodes in my software / domain knowledge skill tree makes me want to shoot myself. My goal is to work on software that facilitates other fields in which I actually have an interest, and where there is an abundance of complexity, IRL levity and juicy non-IT knowledge to absorb. I know I could be making more as a freelancer, but I would rather be interested in my work than marginally richer from it.
These guys would have to be some serious rockstars of design and project management to make this fly for * use cases and * talent pools. I think it is more likely that they just think they are, and that they are in for a world of pain. I find it unlikely that a developer with serious chops and flexible skills will want to participate in this scheme instead of the good job/contract they probably already have working on something long term and of greater weight/interest. Likewise I find it unlikely that a good designer/project engineer with the talent to pull this off on their end will want to spend their days doing bite size projects for penny-pinching customers instead of working on big boy projects where their dev pool isn't a constantly shifting variable.
Sounds like a bubble that will burst, leaving behind a bunch of crap software with no support, unsatisfied customers, burnt out designers, rich initial investors, and worst of all, a bunch of mediocre devs who think they have skills because one time somebody paid them shit to work on some dinky webapp.
Argh! I don't want to feed the troll but I so want to know what 'his' (your) idea of 'showing' good 'computing' is! C'mon - give us a taste! I assume from your incredibly odd and specific language that you must have done some amazing things in the world of computing that have been spoken of most highly by reputable people in the art (or you are suffering from some kind of aphasia, I can't tell for sure).. Lay it on me! Allow me to learn from this crushing defeat by getting a glimpse of true computing genius in all of its reputably regarded glory!
Seriously though - I think you may be even further down the spectrum than I am. Just, you know, without the smart bits.
If you're so great at computing, what can you show us you've done that's good that reputable others spoke highly of?
Show us something you've done that reputable others in the art and science of computing said is good then
Oh shit is there a council of elders of 'computing' that I never knew about? How will I ever be taken seriously until they speak highly of my things that they say are good? Are they the ones that taught you to talk right by using words and think good stuff?
I'm quite convinced that you are a troll or some kind of idiot Turing test gone off the rails, but I can't resist: who are these reputable people that were supposed to review my work before it was sold worldwide as a critical part of energy infrastructure reliability and automation? Is everybody in danger?
If you think that a lifetime of substituting cognition for intuition to cope with social bullshit doesn't give one the ability to juggle variables, I'm afraid you are the 'retarded idiot'. Also I think the people to which you are referring are not 'savants' (I don't think you know what that word means) but just garden variety idiots. A savant can hold 1,000,000 variables, scopes and branching conditionals in their head, it's just that none of them have to do with whatever dumb shit you are talking about and they just desperately want to get away from you.
This may actually be a very smart move on their part. As the architect of a very meta-driven, open-ended, polymorphous software framework, I have 2 things to thank for its ongoing elegance and lack of insane bloaty bullshit that is the SAP UI:
1) I have drawn my most important lessons on how not to do things from the SAP UI - and I only interact with it to do a timesheet once a week. A few years ago I coined the phrase 'SAP-itis' to refer to frameworks so ridiculously abstract and poorly factored that the simplest possible use case employs 100 buttons / menu options and none of them make any goddamn sense.
2) As somebody who is 'on the spectrum' as they say, I have a very strong urge for pattern recognition, which in turn makes me good at refactoring what seems like 1000 disparate/conflicting feature requests into a neat hierarchy of core functionalities that each make sense atomically and stack up to create complex functions without becoming spaghetti, both code-wise and visually. Also I have a habit of working myself to death on re/designing core functions rather than let somebody's sloppy idea of a 'good feature' dirty up my nice, clean framework by bolting it where it does not belong, and therefore spend a good deal of time essentially working for free.
Something tells me that I am not unique in this pairing of dis/ability and that somebody at SAP has figured it out.
I think what it is really saying is that nobody in their right mind makes a web front end, socket handler or other probable attack surface from scratch in C++ unless the application legitimately requires the (ever decreasing) amount of additional performance it confers, and thus it has a smaller showing in this list.
Let's not forget also that the tooling involved in these surveys is not magic. I have monthly SCA audits and at least 60% of the 'critical' issues it finds are pure nonsense. Things like indirection, polymorphism, chains of data custody, what is/not a public API are not well understood by the scan engine. If I make 10 classes that pass/access a variable, and only the first one has a public API and is ever called by anything other than the one before it, the SCA will tell me that I have 9 classes that are not doing proper null / boundary value / SQL injection / etc. checking.
The time that I have spent fixing actual potential issues found by SCA is dwarfed by the amount of time I have spent learning its heuristics just so that I can write the code in a way that obfuscates the 'issue' so I can skip the argument with our security 'experts'.
When you start saying 'java Web plugin' instead of 'java' maybe you will sound less like an ignorant idiot and more like an idiot who just says irrelevant shit everybody already knows.
So they are all languages commonly used by novice dabblers to make Web front ends. Is the next report going to show that the sloppiest code is VB? Or that the most commonly pooped in garment is a diaper?
This is exactly the kind of test tube pissing to which I was referring. What we are observing is not 'Obamacare'. It is the net result of an initial plan being chewed up and shit out through the human centipede that is congress. Beyond that, there has been a continuous stream of intentional attacks on it's effectiveness in an attempt to demonstrate it's ineffectiveness. Was the initial plan good? It's pretty hard to tell since it is not in effect, and I don't necessarily blame the plan so much as all the assholes who would not give it a chance to stand on it's own for that result.
If republicans had won the day with their healthcare proposal (which was what again?), I (as a ficticious political party interested in actual progress) would have waited to see how it actually played out before shitting on it and trying to sabotage it, otherwise I only have myself to blame for the ongoing nightmare that is healthcare. All things considered, I am actually impressed at how well ACA is holding together.
Obamacare shut down a women's health initiative
Then there's "religious objection!" which didn't exist as far as I could tell prior to Obamacare
I'll be frank that I am not going to take the time to research this and post a source, but I really don't see any way that these are not direct results of republican riders to the original ACA, so is it 'Obamacare' you are mad at or partisan asshats in congress?
On top of that, my deductible has doubled and my premium has doubled
And now insurers want more of my money in the form of a bailout?!
What? Insurance companies are greedy, opportunistic, evil fucks who jump on a shift on the market to jack prices or worse, in an intentional effort to make ACA look bad? The devil you say. Did the ACA mandate that they charge you more, or did they just tell you that? Kind of like how drug companies need to gouge the shit out of people to get money for 'research'? Or when oil prices go up because 'reasons'?
Slashdot Mirror
Those aren't "welfare" items but rather items of civilized society.
I would argue that a society with 0 social assistance programs is not a very civilized society. I think you underestimate the amount of order and civility of society that stems in/directly from people being able to get help sometimes when they need it and not go down in flames because of a single adverse event in their lives. That is the whole problem with this point of view: the societal benefits of welfare are often 2+ degrees of separation from the investment, so you assume they do not exist and just whine that you had to pay some tax money and got nothing for it in immediate returns. If you treat it like a transaction where you expect to get an instant return of 10 units of quality of life per $100 of tax money then you are oversimplifying, and I'm not surprised you don't see the value. It is, nonetheless valuable.
What, and not immediately turn every discussion into slinging reductionist hyperbolic idiocy at each other? Unthinkable, sir! If I actually have to consider the merits of each argument rather than just looking for the (R) or (D) next to the name, how will I find time to write my ignorant diatribes in comment sections?
The creation of welfare states are the greatest threat to freedom because the actions of one person now affect the pocketbook of another
And the alternative, where the slightest hiccup in the life of somebody living on the poverty line causes their shit to enter an unrecoverable downward spiral - that doesn't adversely affect our society or economy at all, eh?
But this is greatly exacerbated in a state full of subsidies and other shared burdens.
Christ I am sick of hearing this short-term thinking bullshit. We all share burdens - no way around it. The question is whether you want to acknowledge that reality and try to deal with it sensibly, or pretend it doesn't exist and that you don't live in an interconnected society that benefits from increases in the general quality of everyone's lives. Just because you take the welfare line items out of the tax budget doesn't mean you are not paying for the costs of perpetual poverty and the effects of an ever increasing number of permanently disenfranchised people. You are, in fact, being the smoker in your example - making a selfish, stupid decision to defer positive preventative measures and instead rely on ludicrously expensive and ineffective disaster control.
Me, I prefer to share the burden in the form of proactive support. I, as a person who would like to not be sociopath, consider the term 'shared burden' to be a positive indication of a society recognizing its moral duty to at least try to promote dignity for the least of its people. Are these programs riddled with issues, run by fallible humans and taken advantage of by lazy fucks? You bet. But look who cashes in on the alternative do-nothing approach: predatory banks, prisons, overcharging pharma / insurance companies, etc. (oh gee, and who are same guys putting the screws to the rest of us because of their 'increasing costs'?). And what do we get for the investment in the your approach? Fuckall but more misery.
So no thanks teabaggers, I will happily give $100 today to assist a poor/sick/uneducated person in the hopes that they will improve their life rather than piss it away into the machines of our economy that run on suffering. Maybe that person squanders that assistance, maybe they don't - but I can be damn sure that the alternative is a wasted investment.
cunning politician
Sorry, your point is salient but I have to interject with silliness - I was speed scrolling and barely skimming each post, and those 2 words in conjunction made my brain trip on it's own shoelaces and do a faceplant. Long shot joke - if anybody has read 'Lexicon' by Max Barry you know what I am talking about.
cunning politician
God, do we still have any of those? Ever read transcripts of debates from 100+ years ago, when education and diction were prerequisites for entry into (or better yet, just attributes of) the political class, and just want to cry? I mean even when one of them is arguing a horrible position, they are at least doing it with a delicacy of language and (misguided) thought that I could just kiss them on the mouth.
Trump makes me a sad panda.
Macro != quantum. If you paid attention you would know that this seeming paradox is why they are so interested in it.
TFA:
the forces between two fundamental particles separated by subatomic distances
I don't think Newtonian physics are applicable in this context.
Sure, if you want to make the massive oversimplification of saying that time is a 'dimension' just like the other 3. Just because you have seen it on an X axis doesn't make it part of a simple coordinate system.
Whahhuh? Nobody is looking for a 'reason' (by which you seem to mean purpose) - they are trying to understand how this system works. Granted, the headline should say 'how' not 'why', but did you really think the question being asked was some philosophical one of design and purpose rather than attempting to define the physical mechanics, you know, for science?
I think theft of art is a serious crime. Good thing no such crime was committed here.
'security clearance' is not exactly a rare thing to be qualified for, and generally seems to just mean you have not committed and do not seem likely to commit any financial or cyber crimes. I have one (plus frequent background and credit checks) for each project I am on, and my past is far from spotless. I think my shit is just not the shit they are worried about. Maybe you are working on some secret squirrel shit for DoD and yours is really shiny, but the 10 or so I have were not hard to come by.
That's why I added the word 'contract'. My point is that, reviewing the case studies on their site, they all look boring as shit to work on if one has any interest in writing software that actually does something of significance or in a field that is interesting. No disrespect if that's your thing, but I find it hard to grasp being passionate in a medium and not caring at all about where you apply it. If I was an awesome graphic designer I don't think I would be looking to work on Target inserts in the Sunday paper, even if it did pay well.
Maybe I just work in a strange niche industry, but I have never seen source code be a deliverable of a project. I get paid to deliver solutions, not hand over the IP.
Before I was just skeptical about the Gigster business model. Now I am convinced that it is a cult of some sort.
I don't know, maybe I am in the minority on this, but the idea of going from gig to gig applying the same skillset and technologies to different, simple projects that are essentially siblings in complexity as opposed to unlocking new nodes in my software / domain knowledge skill tree makes me want to shoot myself. My goal is to work on software that facilitates other fields in which I actually have an interest, and where there is an abundance of complexity, IRL levity and juicy non-IT knowledge to absorb. I know I could be making more as a freelancer, but I would rather be interested in my work than marginally richer from it.
Yeah I don't get it.
These guys would have to be some serious rockstars of design and project management to make this fly for * use cases and * talent pools. I think it is more likely that they just think they are, and that they are in for a world of pain. I find it unlikely that a developer with serious chops and flexible skills will want to participate in this scheme instead of the good job/contract they probably already have working on something long term and of greater weight/interest. Likewise I find it unlikely that a good designer/project engineer with the talent to pull this off on their end will want to spend their days doing bite size projects for penny-pinching customers instead of working on big boy projects where their dev pool isn't a constantly shifting variable.
Sounds like a bubble that will burst, leaving behind a bunch of crap software with no support, unsatisfied customers, burnt out designers, rich initial investors, and worst of all, a bunch of mediocre devs who think they have skills because one time somebody paid them shit to work on some dinky webapp.
Argh! I don't want to feed the troll but I so want to know what 'his' (your) idea of 'showing' good 'computing' is! C'mon - give us a taste! I assume from your incredibly odd and specific language that you must have done some amazing things in the world of computing that have been spoken of most highly by reputable people in the art (or you are suffering from some kind of aphasia, I can't tell for sure).. Lay it on me! Allow me to learn from this crushing defeat by getting a glimpse of true computing genius in all of its reputably regarded glory!
Seriously though - I think you may be even further down the spectrum than I am. Just, you know, without the smart bits.
If you're so great at computing, what can you show us you've done that's good that reputable others spoke highly of?
Show us something you've done that reputable others in the art and science of computing said is good then
Oh shit is there a council of elders of 'computing' that I never knew about? How will I ever be taken seriously until they speak highly of my things that they say are good? Are they the ones that taught you to talk right by using words and think good stuff?
I'm quite convinced that you are a troll or some kind of idiot Turing test gone off the rails, but I can't resist: who are these reputable people that were supposed to review my work before it was sold worldwide as a critical part of energy infrastructure reliability and automation? Is everybody in danger?
Ugh. Just...ugh. I think there are some scientologists that would love to talk to you.
If you think that a lifetime of substituting cognition for intuition to cope with social bullshit doesn't give one the ability to juggle variables, I'm afraid you are the 'retarded idiot'. Also I think the people to which you are referring are not 'savants' (I don't think you know what that word means) but just garden variety idiots. A savant can hold 1,000,000 variables, scopes and branching conditionals in their head, it's just that none of them have to do with whatever dumb shit you are talking about and they just desperately want to get away from you.
This may actually be a very smart move on their part. As the architect of a very meta-driven, open-ended, polymorphous software framework, I have 2 things to thank for its ongoing elegance and lack of insane bloaty bullshit that is the SAP UI:
1) I have drawn my most important lessons on how not to do things from the SAP UI - and I only interact with it to do a timesheet once a week. A few years ago I coined the phrase 'SAP-itis' to refer to frameworks so ridiculously abstract and poorly factored that the simplest possible use case employs 100 buttons / menu options and none of them make any goddamn sense.
2) As somebody who is 'on the spectrum' as they say, I have a very strong urge for pattern recognition, which in turn makes me good at refactoring what seems like 1000 disparate/conflicting feature requests into a neat hierarchy of core functionalities that each make sense atomically and stack up to create complex functions without becoming spaghetti, both code-wise and visually. Also I have a habit of working myself to death on re/designing core functions rather than let somebody's sloppy idea of a 'good feature' dirty up my nice, clean framework by bolting it where it does not belong, and therefore spend a good deal of time essentially working for free.
Something tells me that I am not unique in this pairing of dis/ability and that somebody at SAP has figured it out.
I think what it is really saying is that nobody in their right mind makes a web front end, socket handler or other probable attack surface from scratch in C++ unless the application legitimately requires the (ever decreasing) amount of additional performance it confers, and thus it has a smaller showing in this list.
Let's not forget also that the tooling involved in these surveys is not magic. I have monthly SCA audits and at least 60% of the 'critical' issues it finds are pure nonsense. Things like indirection, polymorphism, chains of data custody, what is/not a public API are not well understood by the scan engine. If I make 10 classes that pass/access a variable, and only the first one has a public API and is ever called by anything other than the one before it, the SCA will tell me that I have 9 classes that are not doing proper null / boundary value / SQL injection / etc. checking.
The time that I have spent fixing actual potential issues found by SCA is dwarfed by the amount of time I have spent learning its heuristics just so that I can write the code in a way that obfuscates the 'issue' so I can skip the argument with our security 'experts'.
When you start saying 'java Web plugin' instead of 'java' maybe you will sound less like an ignorant idiot and more like an idiot who just says irrelevant shit everybody already knows.
So they are all languages commonly used by novice dabblers to make Web front ends. Is the next report going to show that the sloppiest code is VB? Or that the most commonly pooped in garment is a diaper?
If republicans had won the day with their healthcare proposal (which was what again?), I (as a ficticious political party interested in actual progress) would have waited to see how it actually played out before shitting on it and trying to sabotage it, otherwise I only have myself to blame for the ongoing nightmare that is healthcare. All things considered, I am actually impressed at how well ACA is holding together.
Obamacare shut down a women's health initiative
Then there's "religious objection!" which didn't exist as far as I could tell prior to Obamacare
I'll be frank that I am not going to take the time to research this and post a source, but I really don't see any way that these are not direct results of republican riders to the original ACA, so is it 'Obamacare' you are mad at or partisan asshats in congress?
On top of that, my deductible has doubled and my premium has doubled
And now insurers want more of my money in the form of a bailout?!
What? Insurance companies are greedy, opportunistic, evil fucks who jump on a shift on the market to jack prices or worse, in an intentional effort to make ACA look bad? The devil you say. Did the ACA mandate that they charge you more, or did they just tell you that? Kind of like how drug companies need to gouge the shit out of people to get money for 'research'? Or when oil prices go up because 'reasons'?