The difficulty of a particular parallel programming task depends greatly on the complexity of the task at hand. Serial programming has the same issues.
I've had lots of serial programming tasks that are actually very difficult to break down, modularize, and make extensible. I've also had parallel programming tasks that have been pretty simple -- and some that have been pretty difficult. Let's face it... a task which involves a simple fire-and-forget is parallel... but incredibly easy. It is when notification and state management are involved that things get more complicated. But that's the same with serial programming -- although serial is a little more straightforward.
Any programmer worth their salt will become more and more proficient in parallel programming over time. It just takes practice, knowing what to look for, knowing what pitfalls there are, et cetera.
But what I was responding to was the claim that only occasionally going to Church and not 'practicing' in a daily, public way means you're not Christian (or Jewish, or whatever). More to the point, if they "truly believe" that being Christian can mean occasionally going to Church, celebrating Christmas, and believing in God in a non-confrontational kind of way, more power to them... erroneus claimed that "most people who call themselves Christian don't practice it in their daily lives and in essence, don't actually or truly believe."
ah ok, my bad. I see the assertion you are challenging. "Most Christians aren't really Christians." I agree, a little too broad and misguided.
I'd probably have been more comfortable if erroneus made two separate assertions:
1) Most Christians believe that they themselves are being good and true Christians.
2) Most non-Christians believe that Christians do not act the way that "true" Christians should act.
Again, totally unsupported and subjective. However, it adds in the point that everything is relative to the observer. Rather than everything being absolute as was originally asserted.
When you read Genesis, it is clear that god was following an agile methodology -- except that he was his own customer. He did all of that in six days. That probably would have taken six years using a waterfall methodology.
The start of Genesis reads like agile. He literally wrote a story card (declared the requirement), solved the story, approved it (saw that it was good) and then took the next card. He didn't plan and design it all in advance.
Only problem is that nobody reviewed his implementation. So when it got fucked up, he just got pissed at himself and flushed it (literally) down the toilet so he could start over.
Who the hell are you to decide what people "actually or truly believe"? (FWIW, I don't understand the difference, but that's not really the point.)
Everyone decides these things on their own. It is simply a case of a hypocrite versus practitioner. I was a born-again Christian for several years in my teens. When I was nineteen, I literally left the church, left my faith, because I simply didn't "believe" anymore and that happened over a two year period. My fellow Christian friends told me, "If you are leaving, then you never really believed in God to begin with."
Basically, they were calling me a hypocrite. That over those years, I was simply "going through the motions" and not really believing in what I was doing. And at first, that couldn't have been further from the truth. But towards the end, they were right. I really didn't believe anymore.
Point being, "truly believing" means that someone is simply practicing what they preach. People who preach something and don't practice it don't "truly believe" in what they are saying.
Every so often, someone wants to start using AJAX and automatic form reposting and a bunch of stuff that makes their code unreadabale and unmaintainable by the rest of the crew.
I think you're crazy. Have you looked at the source code of "classic" CGI pages that do a full form post and then return back to the same page... all the while trying to retain the state of existing fields or refresh the screen dynamically based on a selection? Gimme a break. Go read some of the "classic" source code in Bugzilla sometime. Talk about coding horror. Go look at the "dynamic" query portion of the Bugzilla search page. (Sidenote: This isn't a knock on Bugzilla developers. You guys did the best with what you had at the time). If Bugzilla's search page was AJAX enabled, it would be worlds easier to read, understand, and maintain.
AJAX programming is so much cleaner. You post only what you need to, when you need to, and then update only the portion of the page that you need to. I don't know how you can say that is more "hard to read" or "a real pain". AJAX programming is the closest you can get to thick-client, event-driven UI programming in a browser. Combine it with JSON and you are talking VERY clean.
I'd love to see examples of what you think "painful" AJAX code is versus the same code in the "classic" CGI paradigm.
I'm not suggesting a mercenary attitude. I'm saying that it is a complete illusion that people have rights at all.
If you live through tomorrow, it is for the simple reason that you either did not kill yourself or something else did not kill you. If you own your house tomorrow, it is because the bank has allowed you to do that. If you are allowed to walk down the street, it is because someone else doesn't feel the need or desire to stop you -- or they cannot stop you.
A person's ability to do something solely resides in their environment allowing them to do it. For example, murdering someone is illegal in the United States. A person supposedly has no "right" to do that. However, if you have the enough resources at your disposal, I assure you that you can do it without significant fear of reprisal -- if any reprisal at all.
I'm sorry to rain on people's idealistic parade here, but no piece of paper is going to protect you -- no matter how eloquently written it is. It is *words on paper*. No piece of paper is going to prevent someone from taking what is yours. Likewise, no piece of paper is going to prevent you from doing what you want.
A "right" is a complete illusion. If you want to protect yourself, you have got to have influence, power, and control over your immediate environment. Otherwise, your destiny is solely at the mercy of the external forces around you.
When we consider what was written in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, we really need to give consideration to the hypocrisies. When the forefathers say "self-evident", they are saying that with the same attitude that people hundreds of years ago said that "the earth being the center of the universe is self-evident". Or the existence of God is "self-evident".
I mean, most of our forefathers owned slaves. Most of our forefathers felt women should not vote. Most of our forefathers felt that the practice of homosexuality should probably be punished by death.
In my opinion, nobody has any unalienable rights. When you are born, you live until you killed by someone (or something) else.
If you want to be smart, don't worry so much about protecting your "rights" or your "perceived rights". Forget about that and worry about how you can sufficiently influence your own environment to allow you to live your life to its fullest. Whether that is through money, through love, through giving, or through force.
I certainly don't think it is a conspiracy. I was merely saying that the misplacing of the footage adds fuel to the fire of the conspiracy theorists. Whether it was misplaced decades ago or not is immaterial.
In the eyes of the conspiracy theorist, the fact that recordings of the most significant event of the last millenium was lost is proof enough that it simply didn't happen.
Also, for this conspiracy theory, it certainly doesn't bode well that NASA just lost all of the high-quality moonwalk footage. Seems sort of strange given its relative historical and scientific value.
Read the book or rent the movie. Talks alot about this. Many people, including many scientists and historians, don't believe the US ever went to the moon. It really was a piece of propaganda during a very communist-paranoid time in our history.
NEWSFLASH! This distro is NOT for you. It's not developed for you, it's not designed for you, it's not intended for you. You want to game? Use Windows [for now], or buy a console.
Can we get past the idea that we have to have two completely separate computers... one for gaming and one for business? This is 2006. I think we can have one machine that does both.
XP Professional does both. Hell, even Macintosh does both to some level.
Telling people that they should dual boot is not going to get new users any time soon.
Yes, and make sure that you use Spring to actually instantiate your ThingImpl because "new ThingImpl()" isn't good enough. Oh, and throw a design pattern or two in there. Definitely a good enterprise design, there.
I'm talking about _trustworthy interoperability_. Not editing the document in one editor and having it look totally different when someone else opens it in another. MS Office is the standard. Linux needs to have it.
MS Office is the *only* reason that Mac is gaining market share. Hell, Mac doesn't even have that many more games than Linux. Its all about the office suite.
If Linux gets the Microsoft Office suite, then Linux can really start to gain ground.
Actually, I don't disagree with you. Back in the old, old MS-DOS days, this is the way that many programs ran. Single, wholly-contained executables. Or at the worst, a single-directory tree that was copied over wholesale if you wanted to install it. No registry changes, no operating system changes.
Its not the "gorgeous" that is the problem. I've always said that Linux will have arrived when someone will be able to (practically) use the Microsoft Office Quick Installation Guide for Windows to install their Office applications on their Linux machine.
1) Insert Office CD. Installer will automatically start 2) Select applications to be installed. (All applications should be supported) 3) Wait for a bit for the installation to complete 4) Enter product key 5) You're done
That's how it is on Mac. That's how it should be on Linux. If it were this way on Linux, you'd see people starting to migrate in much greater numbers. Microsoft Office is the single point of domination that has people ball-and-chained. If you solve that problem, people will start looking elsewhere. Macintosh users already know this... I don't know why Linux companies can't follow suit.
"Coding Horror!!!" to draw a phrase from McConnell and the bible, Code Complete...
IMHO, AJAX and dynamic Javascript-based HTML injection really have very few use-cases where they should be used. Take for example Google Maps. If you want a dynamic application (from a browser) that graphically interacts with the user in a virtually real-time fashion, you are going to have to resort to AJAX and HTML injection.
But why in the hell would you use AJAX for a plain-old form-submission and a response page? Or for reporting? Or in an application like Cognos ReportStudio (talk about coding horror). Another example of this horrible misuse is Microsoft's AdCenter. Why in the hell would they resort to AJAX reporting versus just a plain old "submit the form and get the response". It just doesn't make sense.
Not only that, but does anyone else have a nightmare with trying to debug dynamic HTML injected apps? I mean you don't really know if the problem occurred prior to the submit, on the server side, or on the client side after the response was received. And you will have to use both a regular debugger and a Javascript debugger to find out.
AJAX belongs in the pile of overused/misused technologies in software engineering...
Anybody got anymore to throw on that pile?
Re:You need to work it out...
on
IT and Divorce?
·
· Score: 1
It isn't selfish to put your own happiness first? I disagree. That is in itself a selfish act. And I'm not saying everyone isn't selfish to some extent. We all are. But the extent of selfishness is really the issue. For the one poster, he said his entire life centered around making himself happy until he dies. Well, that's fine, but its also selfish.
Nobody should stay in a bad relationship because it is expected. That's the wrong reason. Stay in a relationship if you are committed to making the relationship work. If you aren't, then get out of it.
Putting others before yourself works regardless of the response. I'm not saying that people should do this all the time. But people should make a habit of putting others that they care about before themselves. To me, that's what love is all about. Putting someone else's needs above your own.
I do agree about the "Forgive and forget..." I never really subscribed to that either. For me, I really just say, "Look, what you did pissed me off, but give me time and I'll get over it. This situation isn't enough to make me want to blast our relationship apart. Pass me a beer."
Re:Like I said, marriage itself has no value anymo
on
IT and Divorce?
·
· Score: 1
2) "Being married" means that you have certain legal rights and obligations. Everything else is a strictly personal interpretation and/or value judgment, and as such, is relevant only to you. Hence, my argument: it is incredibly stupid to stay in a non-functional relationship (or to argue thereof) for the "sake" of a marriage. A marriage is a thing, not a value.
Ah. Here is where you and I differ. To me, all marriages become "non-functional" at some point. They go in and out. It is a long-term commitment that has its cycles -- some great, some good, some bad, some really bad. But the love and the commitment to the partner is what keeps the union together. The "institution" (the only word I can think of) is really only symbolic. A "marriage" is *supposed* to a stronger institution. Stronger than your usual, six-month, fuck-buddy stint. I'm not religious at all, but the word "marriage" is the only term I can use to describe a relationship that is meant to be stronger/longer than the usual "boyfriend/girlfriend" relationship.
I'm starting to think that the only difference between you and I is where we consider it "stupid" to stick around. You probably have a much shorter fuse than I do. For you, you'd consider me stupid to stick around in certain situations. For me, I'd probably consider you stupid for not sticking around in a particular situation.
Not sure we can resolve that difference.
Women speak out, that's the big diff these days...
on
IT and Divorce?
·
· Score: 1
Totally agree. Communication is fundamental. And avoiding the conflict will just make it grow (this is Conflict Management 101 straight out of management classes).
I've fought a TON with my wife. But she has security because she knows now that I won't leave her over a bad fight. Whereas we've had friends (married couples) who had a bad fight and it ends with: "Fuck you, bitch. I'm calling a lawyer." Fighting used to scare the hell out of her. And some of our fights have been months in length -- on and off. But it works out, eventually.
I think the big difference these days is that women can actually speak out these days. 50 years ago, they used to just stifle and not say a word. These days, a wife will walk up to a husband and say, "I don't care if you bring home the money, you're a fucking idiot for doing."
I don't think a lot of men can deal with that kind of confrontation. I think most men just think, "Look, I'm bringing home 100k a year, I'm feeding you, I'm clothing you, you just need to shut up." Those days are over.
Re:You need to work it out...
on
IT and Divorce?
·
· Score: 1
My priorities now revolve around having as much fun as I possibly can before I die.
Which is fine. I'm glad you discovered that about yourself and sad that you had to go through two marriages to figure it out. I don't deny the selfish their happiness... whatever makes you happy.
But let your life be a lesson to others... if your priority is all about you and your own happiness, then don't get married. Because marriage isn't as much about *you* as it is about the *other* person. Marriage is about putting others before you. Opening the door rather than having it opened for you. Giving up your seat rather than taking it.
Same thing when it comes to raising kids. If its all about you, then don't have kids.
Like I said, marriage itself has no value anymore.
on
IT and Divorce?
·
· Score: 1
If two people want a divorce because they're no longer attracted to one another, or because they have disagreements about money, or family, or any number of other very fundamental things, it's incredibly stupid to suggest that they should stay together "for the marriage."
Incredibly stupid? Why even get married then... if you aren't going to stick it out? The way you talk, its stupid for people to realize that a disagreement is not the end of the world... and stay in their marriage.
And "American" has nothing to do with it. If anything, "Americans" these days don't "man up" and own ANY responsibility or decisions. Its always someone else's fault, its always someone else's burden to carry, its always all about *me*. Being married means that you are going to stick with a person, love them, through the good and the bad. If you don't want the bad, then don't get married -- because it comes with the territory.
BTW... I feel for your situation personally. There's a good chance that your wife may have a very tough time accepting her own illness. Here's a good site talking about depression and its symptoms:
Re:You need to work it out...
on
IT and Divorce?
·
· Score: 1
23 Years. Congrats.
And your wife literally sounds like she has problems with depression or some other mental condition. LOTS of people do. It is not normal for someone to encounter instantaneous, unequivocal rage triggered by the drop of a hat. She sounds like she has a medical problem that needs attention. And if so, then help her come to grips with it. You'd be surprised what a bottle of Zoloft will do. People are literally different people after they take it. Happy. Content. Balanced. I know this from very close personal experience.
You don't need a divorce. Your wife needs a regular psychiatric appointment and a constant flow of Zoloft.
You need to work it out...
on
IT and Divorce?
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Marriage is hard. Its a lot of work. If you aren't willing to give up on your child, then why give up on your marriage? I wish people valued marriage half as much as they valued their relationship to their children.
I've seen divorcees willing to move to other states, pay lots of money, adjust their schedules, adjust their lifestyles... all just to be with their kids. Spouses should do the same thing. Its all a matter of priority. Marriage just doesn't mean as much anymore.
These days, people divorce because they argue too much. Or because "the spice" is gone. Or because they don't like arguing about money. Or because the in-laws hate each other. Or because wife gained some weight and doesn't look good enough anymore. Get over it. Man up and deal with it and treat the marriage with the importance it deserves.
I've been married for eight years now and I have a child. Some of that married time has been REALLY hard. But I treat my marriage like my child. It would take a LOT for me to give up on my child. Same for my marriage.
For those who believe that something in the sky created the earth in six days, and then created man from the sand and blew life into his nostrils, and then got pissed at the human race after awhile and flooded the earth except for one drunk who built a huge boat to house all male and female creatures, and then saved the life of a man by having a whale swallow him up, and then sent himself (his son) in the flesh to Earth to tell us that he doesn't really hate us anymore --- rather he loves us -- and then allowed him to nail himself to a tree to save our souls...
Slashdot Mirror
The difficulty of a particular parallel programming task depends greatly on the complexity of the task at hand. Serial programming has the same issues.
I've had lots of serial programming tasks that are actually very difficult to break down, modularize, and make extensible. I've also had parallel programming tasks that have been pretty simple -- and some that have been pretty difficult. Let's face it... a task which involves a simple fire-and-forget is parallel... but incredibly easy. It is when notification and state management are involved that things get more complicated. But that's the same with serial programming -- although serial is a little more straightforward.
Any programmer worth their salt will become more and more proficient in parallel programming over time. It just takes practice, knowing what to look for, knowing what pitfalls there are, et cetera.
It just takes practice.
ah ok, my bad. I see the assertion you are challenging. "Most Christians aren't really Christians." I agree, a little too broad and misguided.
I'd probably have been more comfortable if erroneus made two separate assertions:
1) Most Christians believe that they themselves are being good and true Christians.
2) Most non-Christians believe that Christians do not act the way that "true" Christians should act.
Again, totally unsupported and subjective. However, it adds in the point that everything is relative to the observer. Rather than everything being absolute as was originally asserted.
When you read Genesis, it is clear that god was following an agile methodology -- except that he was his own customer. He did all of that in six days. That probably would have taken six years using a waterfall methodology.
The start of Genesis reads like agile. He literally wrote a story card (declared the requirement), solved the story, approved it (saw that it was good) and then took the next card. He didn't plan and design it all in advance.
Only problem is that nobody reviewed his implementation. So when it got fucked up, he just got pissed at himself and flushed it (literally) down the toilet so he could start over.
Even god refactors things, I guess...
Everyone decides these things on their own. It is simply a case of a hypocrite versus practitioner. I was a born-again Christian for several years in my teens. When I was nineteen, I literally left the church, left my faith, because I simply didn't "believe" anymore and that happened over a two year period. My fellow Christian friends told me, "If you are leaving, then you never really believed in God to begin with."
Basically, they were calling me a hypocrite. That over those years, I was simply "going through the motions" and not really believing in what I was doing. And at first, that couldn't have been further from the truth. But towards the end, they were right. I really didn't believe anymore.
Point being, "truly believing" means that someone is simply practicing what they preach. People who preach something and don't practice it don't "truly believe" in what they are saying.
In other words -- hypocrites.
I think you're crazy. Have you looked at the source code of "classic" CGI pages that do a full form post and then return back to the same page... all the while trying to retain the state of existing fields or refresh the screen dynamically based on a selection? Gimme a break. Go read some of the "classic" source code in Bugzilla sometime. Talk about coding horror. Go look at the "dynamic" query portion of the Bugzilla search page. (Sidenote: This isn't a knock on Bugzilla developers. You guys did the best with what you had at the time). If Bugzilla's search page was AJAX enabled, it would be worlds easier to read, understand, and maintain.
AJAX programming is so much cleaner. You post only what you need to, when you need to, and then update only the portion of the page that you need to. I don't know how you can say that is more "hard to read" or "a real pain". AJAX programming is the closest you can get to thick-client, event-driven UI programming in a browser. Combine it with JSON and you are talking VERY clean.
I'd love to see examples of what you think "painful" AJAX code is versus the same code in the "classic" CGI paradigm.
I'm not suggesting a mercenary attitude. I'm saying that it is a complete illusion that people have rights at all.
If you live through tomorrow, it is for the simple reason that you either did not kill yourself or something else did not kill you. If you own your house tomorrow, it is because the bank has allowed you to do that. If you are allowed to walk down the street, it is because someone else doesn't feel the need or desire to stop you -- or they cannot stop you.
A person's ability to do something solely resides in their environment allowing them to do it. For example, murdering someone is illegal in the United States. A person supposedly has no "right" to do that. However, if you have the enough resources at your disposal, I assure you that you can do it without significant fear of reprisal -- if any reprisal at all.
I'm sorry to rain on people's idealistic parade here, but no piece of paper is going to protect you -- no matter how eloquently written it is. It is *words on paper*. No piece of paper is going to prevent someone from taking what is yours. Likewise, no piece of paper is going to prevent you from doing what you want.
A "right" is a complete illusion. If you want to protect yourself, you have got to have influence, power, and control over your immediate environment. Otherwise, your destiny is solely at the mercy of the external forces around you.
When we consider what was written in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, we really need to give consideration to the hypocrisies. When the forefathers say "self-evident", they are saying that with the same attitude that people hundreds of years ago said that "the earth being the center of the universe is self-evident". Or the existence of God is "self-evident".
I mean, most of our forefathers owned slaves. Most of our forefathers felt women should not vote. Most of our forefathers felt that the practice of homosexuality should probably be punished by death.
In my opinion, nobody has any unalienable rights. When you are born, you live until you killed by someone (or something) else.
If you want to be smart, don't worry so much about protecting your "rights" or your "perceived rights". Forget about that and worry about how you can sufficiently influence your own environment to allow you to live your life to its fullest. Whether that is through money, through love, through giving, or through force.
I certainly don't think it is a conspiracy. I was merely saying that the misplacing of the footage adds fuel to the fire of the conspiracy theorists. Whether it was misplaced decades ago or not is immaterial.
In the eyes of the conspiracy theorist, the fact that recordings of the most significant event of the last millenium was lost is proof enough that it simply didn't happen.
Also, for this conspiracy theory, it certainly doesn't bode well that NASA just lost all of the high-quality moonwalk footage. Seems sort of strange given its relative historical and scientific value.
n der-for-mankind-how-nasa-lost-moon-pictures/2006/0 8/04/1154198328978.html
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/one-giant-blu
Read the book or rent the movie. Talks alot about this. Many people, including many scientists and historians, don't believe the US ever went to the moon. It really was a piece of propaganda during a very communist-paranoid time in our history.
Can we get past the idea that we have to have two completely separate computers... one for gaming and one for business? This is 2006. I think we can have one machine that does both.
XP Professional does both. Hell, even Macintosh does both to some level.
Telling people that they should dual boot is not going to get new users any time soon.
Yes, and make sure that you use Spring to actually instantiate your ThingImpl because "new ThingImpl()" isn't good enough. Oh, and throw a design pattern or two in there. Definitely a good enterprise design, there.
OpenOffice? KOffice? Gnumeric? Please...
I'm talking about _trustworthy interoperability_. Not editing the document in one editor and having it look totally different when someone else opens it in another. MS Office is the standard. Linux needs to have it.
MS Office is the *only* reason that Mac is gaining market share. Hell, Mac doesn't even have that many more games than Linux. Its all about the office suite.
If Linux gets the Microsoft Office suite, then Linux can really start to gain ground.
Actually, I don't disagree with you. Back in the old, old MS-DOS days, this is the way that many programs ran. Single, wholly-contained executables. Or at the worst, a single-directory tree that was copied over wholesale if you wanted to install it. No registry changes, no operating system changes.
Unfortunately, we're well beyond that, now.
Its not the "gorgeous" that is the problem. I've always said that Linux will have arrived when someone will be able to (practically) use the Microsoft Office Quick Installation Guide for Windows to install their Office applications on their Linux machine.
1) Insert Office CD. Installer will automatically start
2) Select applications to be installed. (All applications should be supported)
3) Wait for a bit for the installation to complete
4) Enter product key
5) You're done
That's how it is on Mac. That's how it should be on Linux. If it were this way on Linux, you'd see people starting to migrate in much greater numbers. Microsoft Office is the single point of domination that has people ball-and-chained. If you solve that problem, people will start looking elsewhere. Macintosh users already know this... I don't know why Linux companies can't follow suit.
"Coding Horror!!!" to draw a phrase from McConnell and the bible, Code Complete...
IMHO, AJAX and dynamic Javascript-based HTML injection really have very few use-cases where they should be used. Take for example Google Maps. If you want a dynamic application (from a browser) that graphically interacts with the user in a virtually real-time fashion, you are going to have to resort to AJAX and HTML injection.
But why in the hell would you use AJAX for a plain-old form-submission and a response page? Or for reporting? Or in an application like Cognos ReportStudio (talk about coding horror). Another example of this horrible misuse is Microsoft's AdCenter. Why in the hell would they resort to AJAX reporting versus just a plain old "submit the form and get the response". It just doesn't make sense.
Not only that, but does anyone else have a nightmare with trying to debug dynamic HTML injected apps? I mean you don't really know if the problem occurred prior to the submit, on the server side, or on the client side after the response was received. And you will have to use both a regular debugger and a Javascript debugger to find out.
AJAX belongs in the pile of overused/misused technologies in software engineering...
Anybody got anymore to throw on that pile?
It isn't selfish to put your own happiness first? I disagree. That is in itself a selfish act. And I'm not saying everyone isn't selfish to some extent. We all are. But the extent of selfishness is really the issue. For the one poster, he said his entire life centered around making himself happy until he dies. Well, that's fine, but its also selfish.
Nobody should stay in a bad relationship because it is expected. That's the wrong reason. Stay in a relationship if you are committed to making the relationship work. If you aren't, then get out of it.
Putting others before yourself works regardless of the response. I'm not saying that people should do this all the time. But people should make a habit of putting others that they care about before themselves. To me, that's what love is all about. Putting someone else's needs above your own.
I do agree about the "Forgive and forget..." I never really subscribed to that either. For me, I really just say, "Look, what you did pissed me off, but give me time and I'll get over it. This situation isn't enough to make me want to blast our relationship apart. Pass me a beer."
Ah. Here is where you and I differ. To me, all marriages become "non-functional" at some point. They go in and out. It is a long-term commitment that has its cycles -- some great, some good, some bad, some really bad. But the love and the commitment to the partner is what keeps the union together. The "institution" (the only word I can think of) is really only symbolic. A "marriage" is *supposed* to a stronger institution. Stronger than your usual, six-month, fuck-buddy stint. I'm not religious at all, but the word "marriage" is the only term I can use to describe a relationship that is meant to be stronger/longer than the usual "boyfriend/girlfriend" relationship.
I'm starting to think that the only difference between you and I is where we consider it "stupid" to stick around. You probably have a much shorter fuse than I do. For you, you'd consider me stupid to stick around in certain situations. For me, I'd probably consider you stupid for not sticking around in a particular situation.
Not sure we can resolve that difference.
Totally agree. Communication is fundamental. And avoiding the conflict will just make it grow (this is Conflict Management 101 straight out of management classes).
."
I've fought a TON with my wife. But she has security because she knows now that I won't leave her over a bad fight. Whereas we've had friends (married couples) who had a bad fight and it ends with: "Fuck you, bitch. I'm calling a lawyer." Fighting used to scare the hell out of her. And some of our fights have been months in length -- on and off. But it works out, eventually.
I think the big difference these days is that women can actually speak out these days. 50 years ago, they used to just stifle and not say a word. These days, a wife will walk up to a husband and say, "I don't care if you bring home the money, you're a fucking idiot for doing
I don't think a lot of men can deal with that kind of confrontation. I think most men just think, "Look, I'm bringing home 100k a year, I'm feeding you, I'm clothing you, you just need to shut up." Those days are over.
Which is fine. I'm glad you discovered that about yourself and sad that you had to go through two marriages to figure it out. I don't deny the selfish their happiness... whatever makes you happy.
But let your life be a lesson to others... if your priority is all about you and your own happiness, then don't get married. Because marriage isn't as much about *you* as it is about the *other* person. Marriage is about putting others before you. Opening the door rather than having it opened for you. Giving up your seat rather than taking it.
Same thing when it comes to raising kids. If its all about you, then don't have kids.
Incredibly stupid? Why even get married then... if you aren't going to stick it out? The way you talk, its stupid for people to realize that a disagreement is not the end of the world... and stay in their marriage.
And "American" has nothing to do with it. If anything, "Americans" these days don't "man up" and own ANY responsibility or decisions. Its always someone else's fault, its always someone else's burden to carry, its always all about *me*. Being married means that you are going to stick with a person, love them, through the good and the bad. If you don't want the bad, then don't get married -- because it comes with the territory.
BTW... I feel for your situation personally. There's a good chance that your wife may have a very tough time accepting her own illness. Here's a good site talking about depression and its symptoms:
http://www.dbsalliance.org/info/depression.html/
23 Years. Congrats.
And your wife literally sounds like she has problems with depression or some other mental condition. LOTS of people do. It is not normal for someone to encounter instantaneous, unequivocal rage triggered by the drop of a hat. She sounds like she has a medical problem that needs attention. And if so, then help her come to grips with it. You'd be surprised what a bottle of Zoloft will do. People are literally different people after they take it. Happy. Content. Balanced. I know this from very close personal experience.
You don't need a divorce. Your wife needs a regular psychiatric appointment and a constant flow of Zoloft.
Marriage is hard. Its a lot of work. If you aren't willing to give up on your child, then why give up on your marriage? I wish people valued marriage half as much as they valued their relationship to their children.
I've seen divorcees willing to move to other states, pay lots of money, adjust their schedules, adjust their lifestyles... all just to be with their kids. Spouses should do the same thing. Its all a matter of priority. Marriage just doesn't mean as much anymore.
These days, people divorce because they argue too much. Or because "the spice" is gone. Or because they don't like arguing about money. Or because the in-laws hate each other. Or because wife gained some weight and doesn't look good enough anymore. Get over it. Man up and deal with it and treat the marriage with the importance it deserves.
I've been married for eight years now and I have a child. Some of that married time has been REALLY hard. But I treat my marriage like my child. It would take a LOT for me to give up on my child. Same for my marriage.
Its all about priorities.
For those who believe that something in the sky created the earth in six days, and then created man from the sand and blew life into his nostrils, and then got pissed at the human race after awhile and flooded the earth except for one drunk who built a huge boat to house all male and female creatures, and then saved the life of a man by having a whale swallow him up, and then sent himself (his son) in the flesh to Earth to tell us that he doesn't really hate us anymore --- rather he loves us -- and then allowed him to nail himself to a tree to save our souls...
Praise the Flying Spaghetti Monster!