It has nothing to do with "protected speech", so get off your amendments. They do not apply. You might want to check up on the doctrine of unclean hands.
Example: If you put go around saying that you believe nobody should have to pay to park, and then you try to send me a bill for parking in your driveway, I have every right to invoke your public stance as an expectation that you would not bill me - even if you also have a sign up saying that parking is $10 a day. And I'll win, because a reasonable person has an expectation of being able to rely on your public statements, any signage to the contrary; even more so when there either is no contract, or the contract is one of adhesion.
To make it a bit simpler - same situation as above - I go to park, and you say, "sure, nobody should have to pay to park." You then send me a bill. I contest it and bring 3 witnesses who heard you.
The only difference between the two is when you made the statement about people being free to park, and that's irrelevant if you're well-known (notorious) for saying it publicly. This is Stallman's situation, and why any copyright assignments to gnu.org or the fsf can be undone - it is easy to argue that Stallman obtained those assignments with both unclean hands and fraudulent inducement.
You didn't "miss" the post - you just didn't reply to that part of it.
You are the one making extraordinary claims. You back them up. But you can't, whereas I have backed up my claims that your "diet" is not sufficient. Find a single government body or other authority that proves your point. You can't, whereas I have already done so.
Keep on, you're just proving you don't have a leg to stand on.
And no, fish and poultry and eggs and cereals and fruits and vegetables are not "junk". I already proved you wrong, and you had to change it even though you still refuse to admit you were ever wrong, wrt your "diet" being deficient in vitamin A. Classic sign of a know-nothing troll. If you're going to try to troll, at least don't make the mistake of being so obviously dumb - you make the rest of us look stupid.
Obviously you're wrong in your final conclusion, because the GPL is in sharp descendancy, and many companies, including RedHat, are working to replace ALL core GPL components with alternatives. Just look at the work going on with LLVM as one example.
GCC already died once, when Stallman found he had alienated too many people, who had gone on to develop EGCS. He had to take their code and rename it to GCC and let them take over development. However, GCC is really long in the tooth now, so LLVM will replace it within the decade - and LLVM is not GPL.
By then, expect a lot of the other utilities in the toolchain to have been made over from scratch with more permissive licenses as well. People are simply sick and tired of dealing with nutcases like Stallman, and his crazy claims (for example, that dynamic linking creates a derivative work, contrary to the appeal courts ruling in Galoob vs Nintendo that a derivative work must have form or permanance, or his FUD about linux being bad because it's gplv2 and not gpl v3, and as such, a threat to android ).
Not exactly. The problem is that even here on slashdot, there's a lot of people who don't understand the difference between compiling (transforming something from one form to another) and linking (patching an object file so that the jmp instructions go to the right addresses.
It's why you'll see whiners claiming that php, java, and other byte-code-interpreted languages are somehow "linked in", even though there is no linking step, as in the conventional edit-compile-link cycle.
The java ones are the worst - they'll point to the JIT and say "see - it's compiled." So when you point out that the spec makes it clear that it doesn't EVER have to be run through a JIT, and that if it is, it's not part of the class file, but something done by the interpreter (which then discards the class file, so the class file is definitely never linked in), they get all in a tizzy. How DARE anyone suggest they actually READ THE SPEC?
And then you have goofballs like RMS trying to change the meaning of linking retroactively to include any dynamic linking as viral, whereas copyright law (and the courts in Galoob vs Nintendo - 9th Circuit Court of Appeals) said that a derivative work must have "'form or permanence" and that "the infringing work must incorporate a portion of the copyrighted work in some form". Since this isn't the case with any dynamically linked code, RMS is, like usual, seeing things the way he wants instead of the way things are. So, when you speak of low-information crackpots, you have to include a lot of the "free-is-what-we-say-it-is-and-nothing-else" cult leaders such as RMS and the jokers at the SFLC (who were still claim that the Internet is not a "usual method of distributing software" on their web site a couple of months ago, even though it's the #1 way to distribute software, both closed and open (patch Tuesdays, anyone:-), world-wide).
Only in the United Stazis of America. Such surveillance, even by your neighbor, is illegal in other countries. For example, here in Kanuckistan, a guy was spying on his soon-to-be-ex. He was sitting in his car across the street from his house. The police asked him what he was doing, and he said "That's my house. I'm waiting to catch my wife cheating on me with my brother."
They told him it was illegal, even if it was his own house, since (1) he wasn't on his own property, and (2) he didn't have the consent of the people he was watching. They gave him a choice - move on or be arrested.
Even private detectives are no longer allowed to do surveillance against individuals on their own property any more in PoutineVille.
Don't be stupid. Twitter lets people delete their posts, but you can't do the same for the stuff that the LoC has archived.
How To Delete a Tweet
If you've posted something that you'd rather take back, you can remove it easily. When you hover over your Tweet while viewing your home or profile page, you'll see a few options appear below the message
People signed up with the understanding that they could remove tweets from the public record. Turns out twitter, in handing a copy to the library of congress to data mine (and this is what they've said they are doing), is violating that part of the agreement.
The archive will be available to Mr Lefurgy's team of researchers, to find and analyse interesting trends.
'There have been studies involved with what are the moods of the public at various times of the day in reaction to certain kinds of news events.
'Thereâ(TM)s all these interesting kinds of mixing and matching that can be done using the tweets as a big set of data.'
So, if you insist that your posts are legit, then follow through on your extraordinary claim that a diet consisting solely of rice, milk, canola oil and the occasional carrot is sufficient. I asked you to name a single country, hospital, or clinic that will state as much. You haven't.
Step 1: Report to surgery to have 50% of your brain removed (half the time they'll manage to get the part that governs common sense and ethics and you won't be handicapped in your new roll by that thing called a "conscience").
Step 2: Repeat "Knowing how to do the job isn't important - that's what we hire and fire people for" until you believe everyone under you is as replaceable as you are irreplacable.
Step 3: Register for every ridiculous vendor hand-out, symposium, or whatever. Vendors are your new friends. The more business you can hand them, the bigger YOUR empire becomes, and the more new-found allies you have.
The bonus:
Step 4: Remember all those jokes you made about incompetent management, because it'll make it easier for you to pry the keyboards from your former co-workers dead bodies when you realize that they're now saying the same thing about you.
Why would I be surprised? It's an obvious troll account, as anyone can see by this comment
I can't really fathom why GM thinks electric vehicles would make sense for America. In Europe, gasoline prices are typically doubled by taxes, and we are used to smaller cars, so we are going to get mass market adoption long before the Americans. During this time of crisis, GM should focus on what it does best - providing Americans with ridiculously big and thirsty cars - and leave high tech and innovation to the Japanese and Europeans. GM neither has time nor money to enter new niche markets.
However, the REAL problem is that there are people who actually believe the nonsense you spout - not only believe it, but really latch onto it (like the Herman Cain followers who thought it was great when he told the protesters to "get a job" - when companies are laying off...), and there really is too much of a "if you're poor, you're not doing it right - let me tell you how to fix your problems" attitude, so why not take the opportunity to broaden the audience wrt this pernicious, corrosive mindset?
What's the first thing most people do nowadays when they're interested in something? They hit the net. It's the same (even more so) with kids today. That's the reality. If they were at all interested in programming, they would be asking around; if they were interested in robotics, they would already have something like the Mindstorm on their list.
You're also completely ignoring the last paragraph of the original post, which asked the following question:
Has anybody gotten their younger relations into programming through robotics, and what kits might you recommend?"
The poster is trying to get them interested in programming, not robotics. Robotics is just their "trojan horse."
My reply was directed to the posters question, "getting them into programming", and pointing out the flaws.
You may think my response was stupid, but I at least actually read the entire post, and addressed the flaws in posters' actual question - getting them into programming - instead of my mind going into a brain-freeze after seeing the word "robotics".
Never mind that the whole thing is stupid to begin with because so many schools are now "jazzing up" their curriculum by playing with these toys (because they really are toys, and will have zero relevance a decade later, when they actually want to learn about and work in the field, and like someone who's learned BASIC, will have to unlearn what they've learned before advancing, but that's a whole other problem).
You got caught trying to pull an apple-and-oranges comparison, and you STILL can't admit it? Keep on trying, you only have yourself to blame for how stupid you look.
As for your claims that milk, rice, canola oil and the occasional carrot are all that a poor person needs to live on, how about if I submit it (and this whole thread) as an "ask slashdot"?
And we'll let them also judge if you're being a mean cold-hearted SOB while we're at it. How about it?
You're still missing the original point - this whole gift-giving is based on the ulterior motive of trying to get them interested in programming. Now, if the poster had ANY clue as to what they were actually interested in, perhaps a gift more along the lines of furthering their exploration and interest in THAT topic would be more appropriate?
Or, if I may use your own words in your latest reply:
I prefer to show the person that I actually know about them by getting them something that I think they will like but that they probably have never thought of getting for themselves.
Getting them LEGO Mindstorms because the POSTER wants to try to get them interested in programming doesn't match that criteria too well, does it? It doesn't show that the poster actually knows all that much about where their natural proclivities and interests lie, does it?
Actually, it was one of my nieces who gave them to me. Totally awesome - we were still talking about them 6 months later. The sort of chocolate that you don't want to share, but you absolutely HAVE to! Unfortunately, I don't remember the name - it was a specialty store, so it's not like it's something you can just pick up at the local mall. (If I had seen them...)
"Explaining it" doesn't make it correct. The comparison was grossly inaccurate, because you were basing the costs on two different types of packaging. I pay less for bulk macaroni than I do for bulk rice. If I want to buy cheaper rice, the cost comes to about the same. But really, good rice tastes good all by itself. No need to add any flavouring or seasoning. After all, eating is about more than just "fueling the body."
Also, any search wrt rice-based diets points out that rice is an incomplete source of proteins, and needs to be supplemented with either a legume (beans, etc) or meat. You could survive, for a time, on the diet you proposed, but then again, you can survive for a time on bread and water. That doesn't make it healthy. And I notice you haven't factored in the cost of 10 glasses of milk a day to get the vitamin A that you need because you're restricted to milk, rice, and canola oil, and only milk has vitamin A added. That more than makes up for any imagined difference between cheap rice and cheap macaroni.
Now I'm not advocating a pasta diet either, so please do not continue to make it seem that I am - I'm saying that poor people don't have great diets because they don't have the same choices due to economic constraints, not because they WANT to eat crap all the time. So, whether their crappy diet is based on pasta or rice is irrelevant to my point - that they simply can't afford many of the things you take for granted.
They have to choose between their medication or food.
Then they choose food, since else they die. And as they do, they can just as well choose healthy food, since it is as cheap or cheaper than junk.
Wow, must be nice to live in a world where people only take medication because they want to, not because they need to.
Maybe I should stop wasting $300 a month or more on drugs. Maybe the doctors are lying, and I won't go blind, drop weight until there's nothing left but skin and bones, and ultimately go into a coma and die.
You don't seem to get it - some people don't have the luxury of choices. They can't do an "either - or". They can't say "I'll skimp on the meds to eat." And yet, that's exactly what they end up having to do. And then they end up in the E.R. Or dead in some jail because a cop thought they were a drunk or druggie passed out and should be put in a cell to "sleep it off."
This is reality. And this is only one scenario among many. Maybe your budget won't be impacted too much by an extra $300 a month, but for someone who's lost their job, or is stuck in a minimum-wage job, or had to leave home because of abuse, or any one of a number of other scenarios, it's a disaster. Now what if their meds jump to $500 or $600 a month because of new complications, or a new treatment regime, or another disease? Their life is already precarious, and one more shove, one more unexpected bill, one missed day, and they can't recover, they fall through the cracks, and the next thing you know, they're homeless on the street, or couch-surfing, or they kill themselves because they see it's over - there really is no escape, it's just going to get worse.
But that's okay - as you say, they can stop taking their medication and eat "healthy" instead. "Milk and rice and canola oil, with the occasional carrot".
So tell me, how is someone on a low-paying job (or no job thanks to downsizing or whatever) in a crappy economy supposed to keep alive when 2/3 of their income goes to shelter, 1/3 to medication, 1/8 to public transit, 1/3 to utilities (no cable, but you have to keep warm and have electricity to cook and hot water to wash, and clean clothes and bedding), oops, we're over 100% w/o food, so look on the bright side - no need to cook, right?
I am not making any excuses for bad nutrition. Again, you put words in my mouth that I never said. What I have always said is that eating a proper diet is not as cheap as eating crap. A proper
If you've ever tasted some of the more expensive specialty chocolates, you'll know what I mean. Think of the sweatiest, dirtiest, raunchiest, kinkiest sex you ever had - and multiply by two. It's that good.
If the sweatiest, dirtiest, raunchiest, kinkiest sex I ever had actually involved expensive specialty chocolates, should I multiply by four, eight, or just expect a stack overflow?
Umm, speaking purely hypothetically, of course.
Hypothetically speaking? I would be hoping that you already had your... um... stack... um... overflow...
But if it involved expensive chocolates AND some really good rum, amaretto, or gin, definitely double up on the points.
Hopefully in the future, SQL will die the death it so richly deserves. After 40 years, you'd think we'd have come up with something better...:-)
Also, if they want to "discover programming", there's this great tool that they probably already have access to, called, hmmm, wait a minute, it's coming to me... oh, right, the Internet. And if you google for "learn how to program", the first unsponsored hit gives a realistic perspective teach yourself programming in 10 years.
But seriously, if they want to learn how to program, there are already so many opportunities right in front of them - even basic things like a spreadsheet to keep track of their allowance or "cheat" on their homework - are a simple start. No need for any "occasion."
You don't want to come off as "the dork who always gives these awful geek presents". That would have the same negative halo effect as trying to introduce someone to linux by exposing them to an RMS speech and then having RMS sleep on their couch. It's like a previous article where someone wrote about how they gave DVDs with open-source software on them, and wondered why people weren't bowled over by it.
You really don't want to be *that* person. Even *that* person doesn't want to be *that* person.
Gift giving for nieces is simple. When in doubt - give chocolate. Because chocolate never goes out of style. If you've ever tasted some of the more expensive specialty chocolates, you'll know what I mean. Think of the sweatiest, dirtiest, raunchiest, kinkiest sex you ever had - and multiply by two. It's that good.
Please don't sweat it - you wouldn't believe how many people make the same mistake (and sometimes I let them keep making it because it's funny for those watching who have sigs turned on. It can lead to some really interesting discussion threads:-)
Even on Tuesdays. On second thought, make that especially on Tuesdays.
It wasn't a question of "win" - that, again was your interpretation. I pointed out that you presented false "facts" to defend your argument - the price comparisons, by comparing a retail 12-pack of one commodity against a bulk price for another, and that a diet you said was healthy, was in fact not.
You "lost", if that's how you want to look at it, when you presented false "facts" to bolster your argument. It had nothing to do with anything on my side.
You cannot expect anyone to believe that a diet consisting solely of rice, milk, and canola oil is a healthy diet. And yet, that was one of your original assertions.
Then you pulled some imaginary 40-kg-overweight person out of thin air to help make your argument - that even if it wasn't a "complete diet", they would be healthier. A lot of poor people are skinny - they don't get enough to eat. Or they can't afford the medication to keep them in good health (for example, uncontrolled diabetes - it can cost a couple hundred dollars a month for test strips, insulin, etc...) and can't use all the food they eat. How are they, on the same low income, supposed to eat as well as someone who doesn't have that additional expense? The answer, too often, is that they can't. They have to choose between their medication or food. Or maybe it's "rent, food, meds - pick two".
What you wrote was a bit mean-spirited - that the poor have themselves to blame for not eating right. Eating healthy costs money - money many people just don't have. People don't choose to be poor. You make your plans, do your best, and sometimes stuff happens. Things like job loss. Protracted illness. Divorce. Accident. Crime victim. Death in the family. Are you comfortable telling these people that it's okay - they can live on a diet of milk, rice, and canola oil, and maybe you'll toss in the occasional carrot?
Nobody's advocating a "fill-in-the-checkbox" approach. What I *am* saying, is think about what *they* would enjoy. Here's part of the last line:
Has anybody gotten their younger relations into programming through robotics
So there's your motive - "I want them to get into programming". A field that has a surplus of labour, terrible working conditions, is extremely easy to outsource, and will eventually be mostly rendered obsolete by AI. Frankly, while I was disappointed at the time, I'm now glad my daughters never caught the programming bug.
Might as well recommend buggy whips - there'll always be demand for a high quality buggy whip maker!
Look, you lied and you got caught at it. You and I both know that if I had tried to pull the same stunt you did, by (for example) comparing a 12-pack of individual envelopes of bistro rice, with a 2kg box of macaroni, the macaroni would have been way cheaper, and you would have been accusing me of making a misleading apples-to-oranges comparison.
That you're trying to defend it, even after being caught out, is a bit of an insult, don't you think?
And now you compound it by implying that I was the one who specified Kraft Dinner. I did not. You were the one who brought that specific brand (and as a consequence, the odd-ball unit packaging) into the discussion. I can't remember the last time I bought that crap, but I know it wasn't this century. A case of KD is not "macaroni in bulk" any more than a 12-pack of Dainty Rice Pilaf is.
At least you admit that the diet you said was healthy, is now insufficient. But then you try to "excuse" it by saying "throw in a carrot." Well, maybe you should also throw in some beans or another source of complete proteins (as opposed to rice), because a rice-only diet is an incomplete diet.
And I googled American prices more as a service to you
Another mistake - I'm not American. 95% of the world is not American.
Look, all your arguments are insults to the poor. Food is a major expense for the poor, and they often have to make hard choices - food vs medicine, food vs a warm pair of winter boots, food vs transport to and from work, food vs shelter, less for themselves, more for their kids. You can't live on a diet of rice and milk and the occasional carrot - and even that costs money. People leading lives of quiet desperation don't need a "you should be doing this, see how easy it is" from you unless you've been there, done that. I grew up in the slums - I know what being raised poor is like. Do you?
Well, you're going to have a problem in the future, because Oracle is replacing Sun's Java with OpenJDK. It's going to be the "real" java from now on. The summary, like usual, left this important fact out.
Slashdot Mirror
It has nothing to do with "protected speech", so get off your amendments. They do not apply. You might want to check up on the doctrine of unclean hands.
Example: If you put go around saying that you believe nobody should have to pay to park, and then you try to send me a bill for parking in your driveway, I have every right to invoke your public stance as an expectation that you would not bill me - even if you also have a sign up saying that parking is $10 a day. And I'll win, because a reasonable person has an expectation of being able to rely on your public statements, any signage to the contrary; even more so when there either is no contract, or the contract is one of adhesion.
To make it a bit simpler - same situation as above - I go to park, and you say, "sure, nobody should have to pay to park." You then send me a bill. I contest it and bring 3 witnesses who heard you.
The only difference between the two is when you made the statement about people being free to park, and that's irrelevant if you're well-known (notorious) for saying it publicly. This is Stallman's situation, and why any copyright assignments to gnu.org or the fsf can be undone - it is easy to argue that Stallman obtained those assignments with both unclean hands and fraudulent inducement.
Ever hear of stalking? That's basically what this guy was doing - stalking his ex.
Ever been stalked? I have, both in "real life" and online - real life stalkers are SCARY.
A person has the right to go about their lives without other people sticking their noses into it.
You are the one making extraordinary claims. You back them up. But you can't, whereas I have backed up my claims that your "diet" is not sufficient. Find a single government body or other authority that proves your point. You can't, whereas I have already done so.
Keep on, you're just proving you don't have a leg to stand on.
And no, fish and poultry and eggs and cereals and fruits and vegetables are not "junk". I already proved you wrong, and you had to change it even though you still refuse to admit you were ever wrong, wrt your "diet" being deficient in vitamin A. Classic sign of a know-nothing troll. If you're going to try to troll, at least don't make the mistake of being so obviously dumb - you make the rest of us look stupid.
Obviously you're wrong in your final conclusion, because the GPL is in sharp descendancy, and many companies, including RedHat, are working to replace ALL core GPL components with alternatives. Just look at the work going on with LLVM as one example.
GCC already died once, when Stallman found he had alienated too many people, who had gone on to develop EGCS. He had to take their code and rename it to GCC and let them take over development. However, GCC is really long in the tooth now, so LLVM will replace it within the decade - and LLVM is not GPL.
By then, expect a lot of the other utilities in the toolchain to have been made over from scratch with more permissive licenses as well. People are simply sick and tired of dealing with nutcases like Stallman, and his crazy claims (for example, that dynamic linking creates a derivative work, contrary to the appeal courts ruling in Galoob vs Nintendo that a derivative work must have form or permanance, or his FUD about linux being bad because it's gplv2 and not gpl v3, and as such, a threat to android ).
Not exactly. The problem is that even here on slashdot, there's a lot of people who don't understand the difference between compiling (transforming something from one form to another) and linking (patching an object file so that the jmp instructions go to the right addresses.
It's why you'll see whiners claiming that php, java, and other byte-code-interpreted languages are somehow "linked in", even though there is no linking step, as in the conventional edit-compile-link cycle.
The java ones are the worst - they'll point to the JIT and say "see - it's compiled." So when you point out that the spec makes it clear that it doesn't EVER have to be run through a JIT, and that if it is, it's not part of the class file, but something done by the interpreter (which then discards the class file, so the class file is definitely never linked in), they get all in a tizzy. How DARE anyone suggest they actually READ THE SPEC?
And then you have goofballs like RMS trying to change the meaning of linking retroactively to include any dynamic linking as viral, whereas copyright law (and the courts in Galoob vs Nintendo - 9th Circuit Court of Appeals) said that a derivative work must have "'form or permanence" and that "the infringing work must incorporate a portion of the copyrighted work in some form". Since this isn't the case with any dynamically linked code, RMS is, like usual, seeing things the way he wants instead of the way things are. So, when you speak of low-information crackpots, you have to include a lot of the "free-is-what-we-say-it-is-and-nothing-else" cult leaders such as RMS and the jokers at the SFLC (who were still claim that the Internet is not a "usual method of distributing software" on their web site a couple of months ago, even though it's the #1 way to distribute software, both closed and open (patch Tuesdays, anyone :-), world-wide).
They told him it was illegal, even if it was his own house, since (1) he wasn't on his own property, and (2) he didn't have the consent of the people he was watching. They gave him a choice - move on or be arrested.
Even private detectives are no longer allowed to do surveillance against individuals on their own property any more in PoutineVille.
Don't be stupid. Twitter lets people delete their posts, but you can't do the same for the stuff that the LoC has archived.
People signed up with the understanding that they could remove tweets from the public record. Turns out twitter, in handing a copy to the library of congress to data mine (and this is what they've said they are doing), is violating that part of the agreement.
So, if you insist that your posts are legit, then follow through on your extraordinary claim that a diet consisting solely of rice, milk, canola oil and the occasional carrot is sufficient. I asked you to name a single country, hospital, or clinic that will state as much. You haven't.
On the other hand, here are several countries official guidelines.
And is the one from the World Health Organization
Not one of them agrees with your claims. The diet you proposed is deficient and unhealthy.
Step 1: Report to surgery to have 50% of your brain removed (half the time they'll manage to get the part that governs common sense and ethics and you won't be handicapped in your new roll by that thing called a "conscience").
Step 2: Repeat "Knowing how to do the job isn't important - that's what we hire and fire people for" until you believe everyone under you is as replaceable as you are irreplacable.
Step 3: Register for every ridiculous vendor hand-out, symposium, or whatever. Vendors are your new friends. The more business you can hand them, the bigger YOUR empire becomes, and the more new-found allies you have.
The bonus:
Step 4: Remember all those jokes you made about incompetent management, because it'll make it easier for you to pry the keyboards from your former co-workers dead bodies when you realize that they're now saying the same thing about you.
However, the REAL problem is that there are people who actually believe the nonsense you spout - not only believe it, but really latch onto it (like the Herman Cain followers who thought it was great when he told the protesters to "get a job" - when companies are laying off ...), and there really is too much of a "if you're poor, you're not doing it right - let me tell you how to fix your problems" attitude, so why not take the opportunity to broaden the audience wrt this pernicious, corrosive mindset?
What's the first thing most people do nowadays when they're interested in something? They hit the net. It's the same (even more so) with kids today. That's the reality. If they were at all interested in programming, they would be asking around; if they were interested in robotics, they would already have something like the Mindstorm on their list.
You're also completely ignoring the last paragraph of the original post, which asked the following question:
The poster is trying to get them interested in programming, not robotics. Robotics is just their "trojan horse."
My reply was directed to the posters question, "getting them into programming", and pointing out the flaws.
You may think my response was stupid, but I at least actually read the entire post, and addressed the flaws in posters' actual question - getting them into programming - instead of my mind going into a brain-freeze after seeing the word "robotics".
Never mind that the whole thing is stupid to begin with because so many schools are now "jazzing up" their curriculum by playing with these toys (because they really are toys, and will have zero relevance a decade later, when they actually want to learn about and work in the field, and like someone who's learned BASIC, will have to unlearn what they've learned before advancing, but that's a whole other problem).
You got caught trying to pull an apple-and-oranges comparison, and you STILL can't admit it? Keep on trying, you only have yourself to blame for how stupid you look.
As for your claims that milk, rice, canola oil and the occasional carrot are all that a poor person needs to live on, how about if I submit it (and this whole thread) as an "ask slashdot"?
And we'll let them also judge if you're being a mean cold-hearted SOB while we're at it. How about it?
You're still missing the original point - this whole gift-giving is based on the ulterior motive of trying to get them interested in programming. Now, if the poster had ANY clue as to what they were actually interested in, perhaps a gift more along the lines of furthering their exploration and interest in THAT topic would be more appropriate?
Or, if I may use your own words in your latest reply:
Getting them LEGO Mindstorms because the POSTER wants to try to get them interested in programming doesn't match that criteria too well, does it? It doesn't show that the poster actually knows all that much about where their natural proclivities and interests lie, does it?
Actually, it was one of my nieces who gave them to me. Totally awesome - we were still talking about them 6 months later. The sort of chocolate that you don't want to share, but you absolutely HAVE to! Unfortunately, I don't remember the name - it was a specialty store, so it's not like it's something you can just pick up at the local mall. (If I had seen them ...)
"Explaining it" doesn't make it correct. The comparison was grossly inaccurate, because you were basing the costs on two different types of packaging. I pay less for bulk macaroni than I do for bulk rice. If I want to buy cheaper rice, the cost comes to about the same. But really, good rice tastes good all by itself. No need to add any flavouring or seasoning. After all, eating is about more than just "fueling the body."
Also, any search wrt rice-based diets points out that rice is an incomplete source of proteins, and needs to be supplemented with either a legume (beans, etc) or meat. You could survive, for a time, on the diet you proposed, but then again, you can survive for a time on bread and water. That doesn't make it healthy. And I notice you haven't factored in the cost of 10 glasses of milk a day to get the vitamin A that you need because you're restricted to milk, rice, and canola oil, and only milk has vitamin A added. That more than makes up for any imagined difference between cheap rice and cheap macaroni.
Now I'm not advocating a pasta diet either, so please do not continue to make it seem that I am - I'm saying that poor people don't have great diets because they don't have the same choices due to economic constraints, not because they WANT to eat crap all the time. So, whether their crappy diet is based on pasta or rice is irrelevant to my point - that they simply can't afford many of the things you take for granted.
Wow, must be nice to live in a world where people only take medication because they want to, not because they need to.
Maybe I should stop wasting $300 a month or more on drugs. Maybe the doctors are lying, and I won't go blind, drop weight until there's nothing left but skin and bones, and ultimately go into a coma and die.
You don't seem to get it - some people don't have the luxury of choices. They can't do an "either - or". They can't say "I'll skimp on the meds to eat." And yet, that's exactly what they end up having to do. And then they end up in the E.R. Or dead in some jail because a cop thought they were a drunk or druggie passed out and should be put in a cell to "sleep it off."
This is reality. And this is only one scenario among many. Maybe your budget won't be impacted too much by an extra $300 a month, but for someone who's lost their job, or is stuck in a minimum-wage job, or had to leave home because of abuse, or any one of a number of other scenarios, it's a disaster. Now what if their meds jump to $500 or $600 a month because of new complications, or a new treatment regime, or another disease? Their life is already precarious, and one more shove, one more unexpected bill, one missed day, and they can't recover, they fall through the cracks, and the next thing you know, they're homeless on the street, or couch-surfing, or they kill themselves because they see it's over - there really is no escape, it's just going to get worse.
But that's okay - as you say, they can stop taking their medication and eat "healthy" instead. "Milk and rice and canola oil, with the occasional carrot".
So tell me, how is someone on a low-paying job (or no job thanks to downsizing or whatever) in a crappy economy supposed to keep alive when 2/3 of their income goes to shelter, 1/3 to medication, 1/8 to public transit, 1/3 to utilities (no cable, but you have to keep warm and have electricity to cook and hot water to wash, and clean clothes and bedding), oops, we're over 100% w/o food, so look on the bright side - no need to cook, right?
I am not making any excuses for bad nutrition. Again, you put words in my mouth that I never said. What I have always said is that eating a proper diet is not as cheap as eating crap. A proper
Hypothetically speaking? I would be hoping that you already had your ... um ... stack ... um ... overflow ...
But if it involved expensive chocolates AND some really good rum, amaretto, or gin, definitely double up on the points.
Bonus if it was zombies.
Hopefully in the future, SQL will die the death it so richly deserves. After 40 years, you'd think we'd have come up with something better ... :-)
Also, if they want to "discover programming", there's this great tool that they probably already have access to, called, hmmm, wait a minute, it's coming to me ... oh, right, the Internet. And if you google for "learn how to program", the first unsponsored hit gives a realistic perspective teach yourself programming in 10 years.
But seriously, if they want to learn how to program, there are already so many opportunities right in front of them - even basic things like a spreadsheet to keep track of their allowance or "cheat" on their homework - are a simple start. No need for any "occasion."
You don't want to come off as "the dork who always gives these awful geek presents". That would have the same negative halo effect as trying to introduce someone to linux by exposing them to an RMS speech and then having RMS sleep on their couch. It's like a previous article where someone wrote about how they gave DVDs with open-source software on them, and wondered why people weren't bowled over by it.
You really don't want to be *that* person. Even *that* person doesn't want to be *that* person.
Gift giving for nieces is simple. When in doubt - give chocolate. Because chocolate never goes out of style. If you've ever tasted some of the more expensive specialty chocolates, you'll know what I mean. Think of the sweatiest, dirtiest, raunchiest, kinkiest sex you ever had - and multiply by two. It's that good.
Even on Tuesdays. On second thought, make that especially on Tuesdays.
It wasn't a question of "win" - that, again was your interpretation. I pointed out that you presented false "facts" to defend your argument - the price comparisons, by comparing a retail 12-pack of one commodity against a bulk price for another, and that a diet you said was healthy, was in fact not.
You "lost", if that's how you want to look at it, when you presented false "facts" to bolster your argument. It had nothing to do with anything on my side.
You cannot expect anyone to believe that a diet consisting solely of rice, milk, and canola oil is a healthy diet. And yet, that was one of your original assertions.
Then you pulled some imaginary 40-kg-overweight person out of thin air to help make your argument - that even if it wasn't a "complete diet", they would be healthier. A lot of poor people are skinny - they don't get enough to eat. Or they can't afford the medication to keep them in good health (for example, uncontrolled diabetes - it can cost a couple hundred dollars a month for test strips, insulin, etc ...) and can't use all the food they eat. How are they, on the same low income, supposed to eat as well as someone who doesn't have that additional expense? The answer, too often, is that they can't. They have to choose between their medication or food. Or maybe it's "rent, food, meds - pick two".
What you wrote was a bit mean-spirited - that the poor have themselves to blame for not eating right. Eating healthy costs money - money many people just don't have. People don't choose to be poor. You make your plans, do your best, and sometimes stuff happens. Things like job loss. Protracted illness. Divorce. Accident. Crime victim. Death in the family. Are you comfortable telling these people that it's okay - they can live on a diet of milk, rice, and canola oil, and maybe you'll toss in the occasional carrot?
Are you really that mean?
So there's your motive - "I want them to get into programming". A field that has a surplus of labour, terrible working conditions, is extremely easy to outsource, and will eventually be mostly rendered obsolete by AI. Frankly, while I was disappointed at the time, I'm now glad my daughters never caught the programming bug.
Might as well recommend buggy whips - there'll always be demand for a high quality buggy whip maker!
How do I know you have signatures turned off? Educated guess :-)
You're the one who engaged in the original invalid comparison, instead of providing real information. Troll much?
Buy them something THEY want or would appreciate. The goal should be to please them, not your own inner child.
What next - "Gee, *I* would like a new chainsaw, so I think I'll buy one for my wife/girlfriend/significant other" ...
Look, you lied and you got caught at it. You and I both know that if I had tried to pull the same stunt you did, by (for example) comparing a 12-pack of individual envelopes of bistro rice, with a 2kg box of macaroni, the macaroni would have been way cheaper, and you would have been accusing me of making a misleading apples-to-oranges comparison.
That you're trying to defend it, even after being caught out, is a bit of an insult, don't you think?
And now you compound it by implying that I was the one who specified Kraft Dinner. I did not. You were the one who brought that specific brand (and as a consequence, the odd-ball unit packaging) into the discussion. I can't remember the last time I bought that crap, but I know it wasn't this century. A case of KD is not "macaroni in bulk" any more than a 12-pack of Dainty Rice Pilaf is.
At least you admit that the diet you said was healthy, is now insufficient. But then you try to "excuse" it by saying "throw in a carrot." Well, maybe you should also throw in some beans or another source of complete proteins (as opposed to rice), because a rice-only diet is an incomplete diet.
Another mistake - I'm not American. 95% of the world is not American.
Look, all your arguments are insults to the poor. Food is a major expense for the poor, and they often have to make hard choices - food vs medicine, food vs a warm pair of winter boots, food vs transport to and from work, food vs shelter, less for themselves, more for their kids. You can't live on a diet of rice and milk and the occasional carrot - and even that costs money. People leading lives of quiet desperation don't need a "you should be doing this, see how easy it is" from you unless you've been there, done that. I grew up in the slums - I know what being raised poor is like. Do you?
Well, you're going to have a problem in the future, because Oracle is replacing Sun's Java with OpenJDK. It's going to be the "real" java from now on. The summary, like usual, left this important fact out.