Yeah, and when the soldiers they were shooting at shot back, or arrested them for advocating shooting at people, they were shocked at the violation of their liberties. Oh, wait, no they weren't. They expected and accepted that the people who they were shooting at would oppose them. Just like this guy should have expected the people he was advocating killing (you, me, anyone at random) would take steps to oppose them.
I'll defend to the last your right to say you disagree with me, and to try to convince others to disagree with me. When you go on to try to convince others to kill me, and give them pointers to get them started, forget it.
If your exercise of your liberty threatens to make me unhappy, I'll just have to deal. If it threatens to make me dead, I'll oppose it, and I hope the government will too. It's simple really: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. In that order.
Hate to break it to you but I'm on Windows XP and I can open a remote file in the file browser of every single application I use. And ctrl+s saves in every single one.
Why should we not value the ability to make a great sounding album? I rarely go to live shows; almost all the music I hear is recorded. If they sound great on the CD, then for my purposes, they are not shitty.
Are you really arguing that if someone doesn't put on a good live show, they don't deserve to make money for producing a great CD? Seems like they don't deserve to make money performing live.
I've seen live bands that totaly rocked, and been awfully disapointed by their albums. I've owned albums that were great but not expected the live band to live up, assuming I ever had the chance to go see them (unlikely).
It seems to me that live performance and CD production are two different (but related) art forms. I don't see why one should be declared the "real" one, or why an artists failure in one should justify ripping off their work in the other. If a band produced a lame album, would it justify sneaking in to their concert?
Re:most misunderstoof language in the world
on
Head First Java
·
· Score: 1
"And the conception that you can't have private members in Javascript is just wrong"
Uh, that was certainly my perception. Not that you need private members in any language, they just protect you from doing things you shouldn't in the future. Javascript is not generally bug on features to protect you from yourself, so it never occurred to me to wonder why it didn't appear to have private members. But anyway, do tell, how do you do a private member in javascript???
"Last I checked, 1 billion is 1e9, right? So a billion is a billion everywhere, and a billion will always be 1000 times more than a million"
In short: Nope. The last time you checked was in the US. In most of the rest of the english-speaking world 1 billion is 1e12; 1e9 is a "thousand million". If it's any consolation, I too am utterly amazed by this.
No. A "dollar billionaire", in the sense they are using it, has a net worth over a billion US dollars. They are distinguishing it from a "Yen Billionaire", who would be rich, but not mega-rich.
By your definition, where an individual would need to have a billion dollars in actual CASH, there probably aren't any. This is because keeping that much money in CASH would be financialy idiotic in the extreme; a trait that is not found in many billionaires.
I'm not sure your analogy is particularly apt either. In any case, that example is roughly typical of the practices employed in the prescription drug market.
"If the golf clubs wants to limit admission to men only, that is the right of that group."
And it is my right to tell them I think they are sexist pigs. In the case of golf clubs, I don't much care (though I would have loved to see the PGA say "No problem, we'll just have to find another venue for the Masters...") In the case of Governments which exert control over people to whom they do not give a voice, I care. The golf clubs are sexist, but I don't have a problem with that. You don't need twists of logic, because while Israel is racist, you see nothing wrong with that. Well, at least your position is internally consistant.
"As long as the process is open and participatory, government is derived from consent of the governed, and the rights of the minority are protected, there's nothing wrong with it."
I agree entirely. Note that Nazi Germany only missed one of your three conditions (protecting the rights of the minority). For Palestinians in the West bank and Gaza, the Israeli occupation misses all 3. The process is not open or participatory, government is derived from having more guns, and their rights are not protected, even though they're the majority.
"Again, with your "replace the word with 'fascist' or 'racist'" remark: if that's the kind of government the people freely choose for themselves, that's their choice. You may not agree with it, I may not agree with it, but they have the right to be governed the way they want"
Did the white rulers of South Africa have the right to choose Aparthied? Is is your impression that the Palestinians in the West Bank have freely chosen to live under a military occupation? The Palestinians also have the right to be governed as they want.
"It is only when gov't gets above itself and starts imposing racist/religious/fascist policies on a public that does not support it that we begin to have a problem."
Which is exactly what the Israeli govenment is doing to the Palestinians.
"Also, I resent the implication that religious is equivalent to racist or fascist"
I have implied no such thing, so please do not take offense. Your religious beliefs are your own as mine are my own. If you consider yourself, and others who believe as you do to be superior to me because I do not believe as you do, then I think your religion is morally bankrupt, but still, you are welcome to it. If you wish to impose a government on me that accords greater rights to people who believe as you do, we have a problem. I suppose a religious government could respect the rights of non-believers, but even though I've studied a fair bit of history, I can't think of a single example. In my not so humble opinion, religiously based government is bad, bad news.
"Ad hominem, ad hominem. Have you looked up the facts yourself, or are you just going to dismiss these as 'some idiot conservative site'?"
You don't seem to know what ad hominem means. My judgement of the site you repeatedly linked was based on your links, and looking around it a bit. I suppose the "ultra" and "blindly" is a bit perjorative. But the site is definetly quite conservative, and certainly pro-Israel. I have in fact looked up many of the facts myself. I have also heard and researched some of the more outlandish claims made by those wishing to discredit the grievances of the Palestinians. You hit most of them, including the real tip off that you are willing to accept any and all propaganda: "there are no Palestinians". Palestinians and Jews both lived in that area before recorded history (they fought a lot then too), and in greater or lesser numbers (but never zero) ever since. Who cares. They are both there now, and they can find a way to live together peacefully, or they can keep killing each other. Neither is leaving. Thanks to the US, Israel has all the guns, and is in control. So I think the ball is in their court. There will certainly continue to be terrorist attacks against them; they can continue to pursue their current policies if they wish to maximize popular support for these attacks, or they could try something different.
I won't bother responding to all your points, because I don't feel like wasting my time. Also don't assume I'm any more sympathetic to the Palestinian leadership (Arafat) than I am to the Israeli leadership. They're all assholes. The losers in all this stupidity are the everyday people. I wind up arguing the palestinian cause, because I think the common palestinian has gotten the rawest deal of all, and because my country seems to just blindly take Israels side no matter what.
"Israel has been accepting Jews from around the world since 1948"
Exactly. Israel has declared that all Jews have the right to live on this land, but non-Jews do not. Please entertain us with some twisted logic that says this is not racism.
"When Israel has taken territory during these unprovoked wars, it has repeatedly withdrawn peacefully"
Which is why Israel currently controls only the land defined by its 1967 borders right? Oh, wait. That would mean the very land on which the palestinians want to have their state, and then we wouldn't have a problem.
"Far more Jews have been displaced from Arab lands since 1948 than vice versa. (I wish I could find the link for this one - I remember reading it within the past year.)"
Probably it was from the same ultra-conservative blindly pro-Israel sources as the rest of your links and points, many of which are ridiculously bald-faced lies.
"Again, why do you think you can determine social policy for other nations?"
Clearly, I can't. But if you are asking who am to think I can tell other nations what their policies should be; that their policies are racist, evil, and doomed to failure: I am a free man, capable of making moral judgements and telling others they are wrong.
"If people are religious and want a religious society and/or a religious government, that's what they'll get. As long as the process itself is open, that's OK. Who are you to tell them they're wrong?"
Replace the word "religious" in that passage with "fascist" and read it again. Or if you want my take on the current state of Israel, use "racist". I believe any country is doomed to eternal unrest so long as it's policies are rooted in the assumption that some of it's residents are inherently superior to others based on their religion or ethnicity. I believe such policies are moraly repugnant and in short, evil. Since most religions assume their adherents are superior to others, I think governments should be secular.
Considering the Palestinians are themselves Semites, I would say anti-semitism is pretty universal in this conflict.
"do you know the boundaries of the original british mandated palestine"
I know it didn't include many areas where palestinians were actually living.
"Also, keep in mind that the residents who remained after the attacks on Israel became citizens of Israel."
Second class citizens. And those who didn't remain (the refugees) are not permitted to return. Despite numerous international agreements guaraunteeing refugees the right to return to their homes.
"when faced with extremists who want to destroy an entire race, it seems reasonable to take steps to specifically protect that race."
There are a few extremists, but most Palestinians would probably just like to live in peace (Unless you're claiming they're all extremists due to some racial deficiency?) Israels policies seem designed specifically to maintain support for the extremists, and thus for the Israeli hard-liners. In any case, your statement sounds like a good argument for taking steps to specifically protect Palestinians from the Israeli government.
"Every other country in the world accepts refugees"
Not every. And notably not Israel. These people actually lived in what is now Israel until they were kicked out by force. If you ever remember the name of that treaty, go look up the signatories. You'll note the lack of anyone representing the actual inhabitants of the territory being divvied up. Those people, who actually lived there, are considered by Israel to have less right to the land than any Jew, even if that Jew has never been there at all.
"Who are you to decide the social policy of another country?"
Who are you to tell people they should just leave their home, and not complain?
"Nations always work best, and history bears this out, when the people comprising it are relatively homogeneous."
Which is why he suggests a secular, ethnicity blind Israel (which I'd reccomend for all nations), instead of one that views people in distinct classes with radicaly different rights and worth. Territories, through the vagaries of history, contain non-homgenous populations. Nations work best when they allow and encourage those populations to assimilate with one another. One thing history bears out with a vengance: A people who set themselves apart from others will not live in peace with those others. They will be oppressed or oppressor. Israels abitlity to portray themselves as oppressed, not oppressor, against all logic, is truly stupefying. But it's getting thin pretty fast.
You were told at your interview that you would be working on projects that were not cleared by congress? That you would be paid with unauthorized government funds? Usually they don't mention the part about major federal crimes until after you're hired...
I suspect you were told you would be working on a "black" project. Which is just a generic (but cool-sounding to interviewees) term for classified projects. I don't dispute that the government funds all sorts of secret projects. Just the concept that there is all this funding mysteriously appearing without congress knowing about it. Congress approves lots of funding for secret things, and keeps fairly close track of where that and other money goes. It seems more reasonable that the projects your friends work on, and you interviewed for, are funded by congress in perfectly straightforward ways.
"Do you think that congress takes the time to see how the money is actually spent after it allocates it?"
Yes. There are at least a couple large agencies whose job is exactly that.
"If you're not a conspiracy nut, why are you reading this, since to you, TIA was never a problem in the first place?"
TIA was a problem even if you're not a conspiracy nut. Hence it's demise. When Congress specifically denies funding for something, the government should not do it, or people should go to jail. At least one person who stood up before congress to take responsibility for doing something congress said the government should not got pardoned by Bush Sr. and now has a job in Jrs administration, which takes a little of the nut out of conspiracy nuts...
On a tangent, the reason the $500 toilet seats made big news a while back was not that the military was using them to disguise secret spending on other things. That would have waranted a small chuckle, and advice that they try something less obvious. The scandal was that they really did spend $500 on a toilet seat.
"The top level super secret shit is called 'black projects'".
People call various levels of secret things "black projects", particularly in the movies. I'm willing to bet that "top level super secret shit" is called a variety of things, and you don't know any of them.
"Funding for black projects doesn't come through washington, and isn't controlled by congress."
Then it doesn't come from tax dollars, and I don't care.
"Nobody knows *where* the funding for a black projects come from, but there is a ton of it."
Maybe it comes from magic elves! Of course someone knows where it comes from. Several someones in congress know where it comes from because they approve it. Just because they don't tell you doesn't mean they don't know. And while it may be officially secret how much is spent on various secret projects, it's not exactly hard to figure out the general outlines. For example, a significant chunk of secret spending is buried in the Air Force budget. (The Air Force buys a bunch of really expensive things, frequently with perfectly good reasons to be quiet about them, so confusing the issue of just how much really expensive stuff they bought is not too hard.)
The reason to use a segway is for the cool factor. Period. It's worse than other platforms in many ways, including the ones you discuss.
As you note, it's better to use an RC tank than a car (or the higher-grade equivalent). Compared to a standard differential drive though, the Segway looses big. Consider having the robot just sit there, stationary. The segway doesn't. It must move it's wheels to maintain balance; a modeling nightmare. In any case, if you want a precise match between model and movement, with maximum flexibility, but aren't dealing with rough terrain, you should use some form of holonome. If you are dealing with rough terrain, you're not going to get precise modeling in any case.
As far as a stable platform for vision/sensors: The typical solution (e.g. a compass, two levels and some cheap servos) is going to cost a few hundred bucks if you want to do it really well. Nowhere close to offsetting the segway. And the segway is only getting you one axis; you still need the usual solution for the others. And it's not doing that axis very well. The Segway probably has some wobble, and needs to lean forward when moving in any case.
This is being done because balancing on two wheels is cool.
"Just accept the fact that the post I made was reality, the world is not a game"
Why would anyone want to accept that? From your descriptions, it doesn't sound like a very enjoyable outlook. I seem to be having a lot more fun by assuming that life is a game.
"Quote my so called 'whining". I said life was hard"
Consider it quoted. You said life was hard, without making any reference to the fact that you're starving to death or suffering from a debilitating disease. You have the time and resources to post on slashdot about how hard life is, and you in fact choose to use them for that purpose, as opposed to making your life better (which is probably chiefly a matter of changing your mind). That is whining.
Wow, your life sucks. Actually, I'd guess your life is about the same as mine, it's just your attitude.
"Real life is about hard work," Hard work can be fun and rewarding. If it's not, don't do it.
"its about survival," In a lot of the world, maybe. In the US, (and pretty much anywhere else you have time to post to slashdot from), just surviving is easy. Even really stupid people do it.
"its about solving problems, its about paying your bills on time, taking care of responsiblities, doing things you dont want to do because they must be done." Many people significantly overestimate what "must be done". You may find you are happier in the long run if you pay your bills, but if you start by not incurring more bills than you can handle, it's pretty easy to do it. In any case, none of this is what my life is about. My life is about playing peek-a-boo with my daughter, riding my bicycle, playing roller hockey, telling jokes, etc.
"That is real life, it certain isnt a game,and its not fun." Life is absolutely a game. You get to make up the rules. Despite this, you appear to be losing.
"Oh, and you only get one chance, so real life is stressful as hell. Failure is not an option." The conditions of success are entirely up to you, and you can change them any time you want, so you get new chances constantly. Failure need not be a possibility. Why be stressed?
its about solving problems, its about paying your bills on time, taking care of responsiblities, doing things you dont want to do because they must be done."
"Reagan was pro-defense (USSR hadn't fallen yet) but not really pro-big-goverment"
He increased the federal budget by more than anyone before him, in both real dollar and percentage terms. So either he was pro-big-government, or incredibly incompetent.
New Rule: If you claim to be against big government while increasing government spending, you shall be laughed at. And if you claim it because you are simultaneously cutting taxes, while further claiming to be fiscally responsible, you shall be pelted with dung.
Of course lines of code is a good number to have if you want to estimate the "probability of finding an error given a line of code". The point is that that is a pretty useless thing to want to estimate. The article is sugesting that number is an indication of "reliability", which is bogus. Actual testing IS a much better measurement, not just because it is a good measurement, but because it is a measurement at all.
If my program needs to do the same thing in ten different places, I could write one function and call it, or I could rewrite the same functionality ten times in ten ways. The latter will produce ten times the LOC, one tenth the "defect density", and almost certainly be less reliable. The chances of producing a bug (maybe even one their checker misses) are ten times as great, and finding it is ten times less likely.
Lines of Code is by definition an excellent metric of the number of lines in your source. It might be a mediocre metric for maintenance difficulty. It's a worthless metric of anything else.
I keep my hand on the mouse, I just do the keyboard with the other hand.
Keyboards could certainly use some improvement. I recently got a Kinesis contoured keyboard (shaped nicely for use by, get this, hands!) and am learning Dvorak. This is miles ahead of a flat Querty, but not quite perfect.
Gesture pad - bleh! A flat pad with no key travel. Not nearly as nice for typing and to get what? Now I can 'copy' by pinching with both hands toward the outside of the pad? I already use a much simpler 'gesture' for copying. It's called 'Control-C', but I just think 'copy' and my fingers do it. On my new Kinesis, I can hit most of the control keys I use with just the left-hand home row.
Most of the funky new interface device I've heard of look like losers. Funky and Different, but less functional. Naturally, YMMV. The Kinesis Proffessional rocks though. Now I just need to add a couple more inboard thumb switches, cut the whole thing in half and mount it on my chair arms, find a good pointing device suitable for similar mounting... Hmm, maybe I should daydream a while longer befor taking the hacksaw to a $300 keyboard.
Your parents earned it, and paid taxes on it. Let's assume that's fair. You get it, without doing anything to earn it, and you think it is unfair to tax you? Every monetary transaction of any kind is a distribution of money on which taxes have already been paid. I won't forget about the seperate legal entities because you are not your parents. When you get the money, you have received income. I don't see why your having done nothing to deserve it means it shouldn't be taxed.
In your example, your parents earned enough money that they can live comfortably without ever working again. And they can leave you enough (even after taxes) that you can live comfortably (for generous, but reasonable values of 'comfortably'), without ever working. Well, OK, it's nice to be you. Under the system you propose (sales tax only) you and your heirs can live comfortably off the interest alone, without working, forever. Hey, I'm sure your parents made some great contribution to the economy/society/whatever when they made their bucks, but sorry, your descendents should still be expected to make their own contributions. (If you and your parents are remotely smart about estate planning, they can have a very nice head start though).
"One of the advantages to a partnership is you avoid double taxation. But you can't have shareholders. You can't say "'Don't like corporate taxes? Setup a partnership.' Yeah, that works if it's relatively small but it isn't a viable alternative for a public company which, by definition, has shareholders." Sure you can have shareholders. It's just that they're called "Partners". Nothing stopping you from having lots of them, or changing who they are frequently. Except of course that random investors out there wouldn't be interested, because "Partners" are legally responsible for the actions of the firm, while shareholders are not. That's the benefit of being a seperate legal entity. I don't see why it shouldn't come with a price. If they did eliminate the tax on dividends, the court clerks of the country would be overrun as every partnership in the country incorporated.
Don't even get me started on the fact that the dividend tax cut does not apply to shares held in a 401(k)s or IRAs (i.e. all the middle class investors) What's the possible justification for that besides a blatant handout for the rich?
"there'd be no point in people trying to "hide" income offshore or simply omitting it on their tax return" No, they'd just hide their sales instead.
"illegal businesses who obviously don't report income (drug dealers, black market, etc.)" They don't report sales either, and I expect under your suystem that 'black market' segment would explode.
I realize some people like mouse gestures, but I don't get it. Keyboard shortcuts seem far more powerful. More buttons than you'll ever invent gestures, less chance of error.
The only theory I've got is that mouse gestures would be convenient if your other hand is, uh, busy. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
But seriously, if there's another reason people find mouse gestures more useful than keyboard shortcuts (as opposed to just more hip), what is it?
"Remember, space is a total vacuum that allows for ultra-pure manufacturing not available on Earth. It also allows for almost unlimited power (Solar collectors), space (add modules as needed), and mineral potential (asteroid belt) for the company willing to exploit it."
All of these things are available much more cheaply on the ground. You can certainly produce just as good a vacuum on Earth, with the advantage of having non-vacuum nearby (not to mention the shipping costs). Solar collectors work down here too, and if you spend the money saved from the launch on more collectors, you make up for the atmosphere penalty and then some (Still, as big time power sources, solar collectors basically suck, they use them in space because it's all they've got). Space (add buildings as needed); do you have any concept how much warehouse/industrial space you can build for the price of a space station module? The mineral potential of the asteroid belt?!? Pick any mineral. We don't know how much there is in the asteroid belt. We do know there is some enormous quantity on Earth that is too expensive to mine to make it worthwhile (too deep, embeded in too much worthless rock, etc.) Can you imagine how far down that curve we have to go before the asteroid belt looks attractive?
"Letting a plutocratic clique explore and stake claims to space and the solar system"
How exactly are they going to do that?
"Would they then be allowed to restrict who travels into space and who remains on earth?"
No. Why would we grant them this power? Do you really think that if say Warren Buffet is the first man to set foot on Mars, and he "claims" it, the rest of the world is just going to throw up their hands and say "Damn! Well, I guess there's nothing we can do. He CALLED it."?
"Space elevators are the key to getting up there IMO"
Why? Lifting a given mass a certain height, and accelerating it to a certain speed takes a certain amount of energy. What does holding onto a string have to do with it?
"Combine a profit mechanism with the federally-subsidized R&D" If it was proffitable (it's not), why would you need a subsidy?
Space is really cool, yes. But it's not profitable. Companies do things because they're profitable. Millioniare playboys do things because they're cool.
Someone asks for an example of innovation being counter-productive, and you get an 'insightful'; for pointing out an example where medicine was incredibly productive, and saying it has been productive, but not as productive as you'd like since. What part of "counter-productive" are we missing here?
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, and when the soldiers they were shooting at shot back, or arrested them for advocating shooting at people, they were shocked at the violation of their liberties. Oh, wait, no they weren't. They expected and accepted that the people who they were shooting at would oppose them. Just like this guy should have expected the people he was advocating killing (you, me, anyone at random) would take steps to oppose them.
I'll defend to the last your right to say you disagree with me, and to try to convince others to disagree with me. When you go on to try to convince others to kill me, and give them pointers to get them started, forget it.
If your exercise of your liberty threatens to make me unhappy, I'll just have to deal. If it threatens to make me dead, I'll oppose it, and I hope the government will too. It's simple really: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. In that order.
Hate to break it to you but I'm on Windows XP and I can open a remote file in the file browser of every single application I use. And ctrl+s saves in every single one.
Why should we not value the ability to make a great sounding album? I rarely go to live shows; almost all the music I hear is recorded. If they sound great on the CD, then for my purposes, they are not shitty.
Are you really arguing that if someone doesn't put on a good live show, they don't deserve to make money for producing a great CD? Seems like they don't deserve to make money performing live.
I've seen live bands that totaly rocked, and been awfully disapointed by their albums. I've owned albums that were great but not expected the live band to live up, assuming I ever had the chance to go see them (unlikely).
It seems to me that live performance and CD production are two different (but related) art forms. I don't see why one should be declared the "real" one, or why an artists failure in one should justify ripping off their work in the other. If a band produced a lame album, would it justify sneaking in to their concert?
"And the conception that you can't have private members in Javascript is just wrong"
Uh, that was certainly my perception. Not that you need private members in any language, they just protect you from doing things you shouldn't in the future. Javascript is not generally bug on features to protect you from yourself, so it never occurred to me to wonder why it didn't appear to have private members. But anyway, do tell, how do you do a private member in javascript???
"Last I checked, 1 billion is 1e9, right? So a billion is a billion everywhere, and a billion will always be 1000 times more than a million"
In short: Nope. The last time you checked was in the US. In most of the rest of the english-speaking world 1 billion is 1e12; 1e9 is a "thousand million". If it's any consolation, I too am utterly amazed by this.
No. A "dollar billionaire", in the sense they are using it, has a net worth over a billion US dollars. They are distinguishing it from a "Yen Billionaire", who would be rich, but not mega-rich.
By your definition, where an individual would need to have a billion dollars in actual CASH, there probably aren't any. This is because keeping that much money in CASH would be financialy idiotic in the extreme; a trait that is not found in many billionaires.
I'm not sure your analogy is particularly apt either. In any case, that example is roughly typical of the practices employed in the prescription drug market.
"If the golf clubs wants to limit admission to men only, that is the right of that group."
And it is my right to tell them I think they are sexist pigs. In the case of golf clubs, I don't much care (though I would have loved to see the PGA say "No problem, we'll just have to find another venue for the Masters...") In the case of Governments which exert control over people to whom they do not give a voice, I care.
The golf clubs are sexist, but I don't have a problem with that. You don't need twists of logic, because while Israel is racist, you see nothing wrong with that. Well, at least your position is internally consistant.
"As long as the process is open and participatory, government is derived from consent of the governed, and the rights of the minority are protected, there's nothing wrong with it."
I agree entirely. Note that Nazi Germany only missed one of your three conditions (protecting the rights of the minority). For Palestinians in the West bank and Gaza, the Israeli occupation misses all 3. The process is not open or participatory, government is derived from having more guns, and their rights are not protected, even though they're the majority.
"Again, with your "replace the word with 'fascist' or 'racist'" remark: if that's the kind of government the people freely choose for themselves, that's their choice. You may not agree with it, I may not agree with it, but they have the right to be governed the way they want"
Did the white rulers of South Africa have the right to choose Aparthied? Is is your impression that the Palestinians in the West Bank have freely chosen to live under a military occupation? The Palestinians also have the right to be governed as they want.
"It is only when gov't gets above itself and starts imposing racist/religious/fascist policies on a public that does not support it that we begin to have a problem."
Which is exactly what the Israeli govenment is doing to the Palestinians.
"Also, I resent the implication that religious is equivalent to racist or fascist"
I have implied no such thing, so please do not take offense. Your religious beliefs are your own as mine are my own. If you consider yourself, and others who believe as you do to be superior to me because I do not believe as you do, then I think your religion is morally bankrupt, but still, you are welcome to it. If you wish to impose a government on me that accords greater rights to people who believe as you do, we have a problem. I suppose a religious government could respect the rights of non-believers, but even though I've studied a fair bit of history, I can't think of a single example. In my not so humble opinion, religiously based government is bad, bad news.
"Ad hominem, ad hominem. Have you looked up the facts yourself, or are you just going to dismiss these as 'some idiot conservative site'?"
You don't seem to know what ad hominem means. My judgement of the site you repeatedly linked was based on your links, and looking around it a bit. I suppose the "ultra" and "blindly" is a bit perjorative. But the site is definetly quite conservative, and certainly pro-Israel. I have in fact looked up many of the facts myself. I have also heard and researched some of the more outlandish claims made by those wishing to discredit the grievances of the Palestinians. You hit most of them, including the real tip off that you are willing to accept any and all propaganda: "there are no Palestinians". Palestinians and Jews both lived in that area before recorded history (they fought a lot then too), and in greater or lesser numbers (but never zero) ever since. Who cares. They are both there now, and they can find a way to live together peacefully, or they can keep killing each other. Neither is leaving. Thanks to the US, Israel has all the guns, and is in control. So I think the ball is in their court. There will certainly continue to be terrorist attacks against them; they can continue to pursue their current policies if they wish to maximize popular support for these attacks, or they could try something different.
I won't bother responding to all your points, because I don't feel like wasting my time. Also don't assume I'm any more sympathetic to the Palestinian leadership (Arafat) than I am to the Israeli leadership. They're all assholes. The losers in all this stupidity are the everyday people. I wind up arguing the palestinian cause, because I think the common palestinian has gotten the rawest deal of all, and because my country seems to just blindly take Israels side no matter what.
"Israel has been accepting Jews from around the world since 1948"
Exactly. Israel has declared that all Jews have the right to live on this land, but non-Jews do not. Please entertain us with some twisted logic that says this is not racism.
"When Israel has taken territory during these unprovoked wars, it has repeatedly withdrawn peacefully"
Which is why Israel currently controls only the land defined by its 1967 borders right? Oh, wait. That would mean the very land on which the palestinians want to have their state, and then we wouldn't have a problem.
"Far more Jews have been displaced from Arab lands since 1948 than vice versa. (I wish I could find the link for this one - I remember reading it within the past year.)"
Probably it was from the same ultra-conservative blindly pro-Israel sources as the rest of your links and points, many of which are ridiculously bald-faced lies.
"Again, why do you think you can determine social policy for other nations?"
Clearly, I can't. But if you are asking who am to think I can tell other nations what their policies should be; that their policies are racist, evil, and doomed to failure: I am a free man, capable of making moral judgements and telling others they are wrong.
"If people are religious and want a religious society and/or a religious government, that's what they'll get. As long as the process itself is open, that's OK. Who are you to tell them they're wrong?"
Replace the word "religious" in that passage with "fascist" and read it again. Or if you want my take on the current state of Israel, use "racist". I believe any country is doomed to eternal unrest so long as it's policies are rooted in the assumption that some of it's residents are inherently superior to others based on their religion or ethnicity. I believe such policies are moraly repugnant and in short, evil. Since most religions assume their adherents are superior to others, I think governments should be secular.
"You think anti-semetism is limited to Europeans"
Considering the Palestinians are themselves Semites, I would say anti-semitism is pretty universal in this conflict.
"do you know the boundaries of the original british mandated palestine"
I know it didn't include many areas where palestinians were actually living.
"Also, keep in mind that the residents who remained after the attacks on Israel became citizens of Israel."
Second class citizens. And those who didn't remain (the refugees) are not permitted to return. Despite numerous international agreements guaraunteeing refugees the right to return to their homes.
"when faced with extremists who want to destroy an entire race, it seems reasonable to take steps to specifically protect that race."
There are a few extremists, but most Palestinians would probably just like to live in peace (Unless you're claiming they're all extremists due to some racial deficiency?) Israels policies seem designed specifically to maintain support for the extremists, and thus for the Israeli hard-liners. In any case, your statement sounds like a good argument for taking steps to specifically protect Palestinians from the Israeli government.
"Every other country in the world accepts refugees"
Not every. And notably not Israel. These people actually lived in what is now Israel until they were kicked out by force. If you ever remember the name of that treaty, go look up the signatories. You'll note the lack of anyone representing the actual inhabitants of the territory being divvied up. Those people, who actually lived there, are considered by Israel to have less right to the land than any Jew, even if that Jew has never been there at all.
"Who are you to decide the social policy of another country?"
Who are you to tell people they should just leave their home, and not complain?
"Nations always work best, and history bears this out, when the people comprising it are relatively homogeneous."
Which is why he suggests a secular, ethnicity blind Israel (which I'd reccomend for all nations), instead of one that views people in distinct classes with radicaly different rights and worth. Territories, through the vagaries of history, contain non-homgenous populations. Nations work best when they allow and encourage those populations to assimilate with one another. One thing history bears out with a vengance: A people who set themselves apart from others will not live in peace with those others. They will be oppressed or oppressor. Israels abitlity to portray themselves as oppressed, not oppressor, against all logic, is truly stupefying. But it's getting thin pretty fast.
You were told at your interview that you would be working on projects that were not cleared by congress? That you would be paid with unauthorized government funds? Usually they don't mention the part about major federal crimes until after you're hired...
I suspect you were told you would be working on a "black" project. Which is just a generic (but cool-sounding to interviewees) term for classified projects. I don't dispute that the government funds all sorts of secret projects. Just the concept that there is all this funding mysteriously appearing without congress knowing about it. Congress approves lots of funding for secret things, and keeps fairly close track of where that and other money goes. It seems more reasonable that the projects your friends work on, and you interviewed for, are funded by congress in perfectly straightforward ways.
"Do you think that congress takes the time to see how the money is actually spent after it allocates it?"
Yes. There are at least a couple large agencies whose job is exactly that.
"If you're not a conspiracy nut, why are you reading this, since to you, TIA was never a problem in the first place?"
TIA was a problem even if you're not a conspiracy nut. Hence it's demise. When Congress specifically denies funding for something, the government should not do it, or people should go to jail. At least one person who stood up before congress to take responsibility for doing something congress said the government should not got pardoned by Bush Sr. and now has a job in Jrs administration, which takes a little of the nut out of conspiracy nuts...
On a tangent, the reason the $500 toilet seats made big news a while back was not that the military was using them to disguise secret spending on other things. That would have waranted a small chuckle, and advice that they try something less obvious. The scandal was that they really did spend $500 on a toilet seat.
"The top level super secret shit is called 'black projects'".
People call various levels of secret things "black projects", particularly in the movies. I'm willing to bet that "top level super secret shit" is called a variety of things, and you don't know any of them.
"Funding for black projects doesn't come through washington, and isn't controlled by congress."
Then it doesn't come from tax dollars, and I don't care.
"Nobody knows *where* the funding for a black projects come from, but there is a ton of it."
Maybe it comes from magic elves! Of course someone knows where it comes from. Several someones in congress know where it comes from because they approve it. Just because they don't tell you doesn't mean they don't know. And while it may be officially secret how much is spent on various secret projects, it's not exactly hard to figure out the general outlines. For example, a significant chunk of secret spending is buried in the Air Force budget. (The Air Force buys a bunch of really expensive things, frequently with perfectly good reasons to be quiet about them, so confusing the issue of just how much really expensive stuff they bought is not too hard.)
The reason to use a segway is for the cool factor. Period. It's worse than other platforms in many ways, including the ones you discuss.
As you note, it's better to use an RC tank than a car (or the higher-grade equivalent). Compared to a standard differential drive though, the Segway looses big. Consider having the robot just sit there, stationary. The segway doesn't. It must move it's wheels to maintain balance; a modeling nightmare. In any case, if you want a precise match between model and movement, with maximum flexibility, but aren't dealing with rough terrain, you should use some form of holonome. If you are dealing with rough terrain, you're not going to get precise modeling in any case.
As far as a stable platform for vision/sensors: The typical solution (e.g. a compass, two levels and some cheap servos) is going to cost a few hundred bucks if you want to do it really well. Nowhere close to offsetting the segway. And the segway is only getting you one axis; you still need the usual solution for the others. And it's not doing that axis very well. The Segway probably has some wobble, and needs to lean forward when moving in any case.
This is being done because balancing on two wheels is cool.
"Just accept the fact that the post I made was reality, the world is not a game"
Why would anyone want to accept that? From your descriptions, it doesn't sound like a very enjoyable outlook. I seem to be having a lot more fun by assuming that life is a game.
"Quote my so called 'whining". I said life was hard"
Consider it quoted. You said life was hard, without making any reference to the fact that you're starving to death or suffering from a debilitating disease. You have the time and resources to post on slashdot about how hard life is, and you in fact choose to use them for that purpose, as opposed to making your life better (which is probably chiefly a matter of changing your mind). That is whining.
Wow, your life sucks. Actually, I'd guess your life is about the same as mine, it's just your attitude.
"Real life is about hard work,"
Hard work can be fun and rewarding. If it's not, don't do it.
"its about survival,"
In a lot of the world, maybe. In the US, (and pretty much anywhere else you have time to post to slashdot from), just surviving is easy. Even really stupid people do it.
"its about solving problems, its about paying your bills on time, taking care of responsiblities, doing things you dont want to do because they must be done."
Many people significantly overestimate what "must be done". You may find you are happier in the long run if you pay your bills, but if you start by not incurring more bills than you can handle, it's pretty easy to do it. In any case, none of this is what my life is about. My life is about playing peek-a-boo with my daughter, riding my bicycle, playing roller hockey, telling jokes, etc.
"That is real life, it certain isnt a game,and its not fun."
Life is absolutely a game. You get to make up the rules. Despite this, you appear to be losing.
"Oh, and you only get one chance, so real life is stressful as hell. Failure is not an option."
The conditions of success are entirely up to you, and you can change them any time you want, so you get new chances constantly. Failure need not be a possibility. Why be stressed?
its about solving problems, its about paying your bills on time, taking care of responsiblities, doing things you dont want to do because they must be done."
"Reagan was pro-defense (USSR hadn't fallen yet) but not really pro-big-goverment"
He increased the federal budget by more than anyone before him, in both real dollar and percentage terms. So either he was pro-big-government, or incredibly incompetent.
New Rule: If you claim to be against big government while increasing government spending, you shall be laughed at. And if you claim it because you are simultaneously cutting taxes, while further claiming to be fiscally responsible, you shall be pelted with dung.
Of course lines of code is a good number to have if you want to estimate the "probability of finding an error given a line of code".
The point is that that is a pretty useless thing to want to estimate. The article is sugesting that number is an indication of "reliability", which is bogus. Actual testing IS a much better measurement, not just because it is a good measurement, but because it is a measurement at all.
If my program needs to do the same thing in ten different places, I could write one function and call it, or I could rewrite the same functionality ten times in ten ways. The latter will produce ten times the LOC, one tenth the "defect density", and almost certainly be less reliable. The chances of producing a bug (maybe even one their checker misses) are ten times as great, and finding it is ten times less likely.
Lines of Code is by definition an excellent metric of the number of lines in your source. It might be a mediocre metric for maintenance difficulty. It's a worthless metric of anything else.
"It's roughly equivalent to asking whether a bottle of wine tastes better before or after fermentation."
Before, definitely. After aging, the wine might be good, or not, but right after fermentation? I'll take the grape juice.
I keep my hand on the mouse, I just do the keyboard with the other hand.
Keyboards could certainly use some improvement. I recently got a Kinesis contoured keyboard (shaped nicely for use by, get this, hands!) and am learning Dvorak. This is miles ahead of a flat Querty, but not quite perfect.
Gesture pad - bleh! A flat pad with no key travel. Not nearly as nice for typing and to get what? Now I can 'copy' by pinching with both hands toward the outside of the pad? I already use a much simpler 'gesture' for copying. It's called 'Control-C', but I just think 'copy' and my fingers do it. On my new Kinesis, I can hit most of the control keys I use with just the left-hand home row.
Most of the funky new interface device I've heard of look like losers. Funky and Different, but less functional. Naturally, YMMV. The Kinesis Proffessional rocks though. Now I just need to add a couple more inboard thumb switches, cut the whole thing in half and mount it on my chair arms, find a good pointing device suitable for similar mounting... Hmm, maybe I should daydream a while longer befor taking the hacksaw to a $300 keyboard.
Your parents earned it, and paid taxes on it. Let's assume that's fair. You get it, without doing anything to earn it, and you think it is unfair to tax you? Every monetary transaction of any kind is a distribution of money on which taxes have already been paid. I won't forget about the seperate legal entities because you are not your parents. When you get the money, you have received income. I don't see why your having done nothing to deserve it means it shouldn't be taxed.
In your example, your parents earned enough money that they can live comfortably without ever working again. And they can leave you enough (even after taxes) that you can live comfortably (for generous, but reasonable values of 'comfortably'), without ever working. Well, OK, it's nice to be you. Under the system you propose (sales tax only) you and your heirs can live comfortably off the interest alone, without working, forever. Hey, I'm sure your parents made some great contribution to the economy/society/whatever when they made their bucks, but sorry, your descendents should still be expected to make their own contributions. (If you and your parents are remotely smart about estate planning, they can have a very nice head start though).
"One of the advantages to a partnership is you avoid double taxation. But you can't have shareholders. You can't say "'Don't like corporate taxes? Setup a partnership.' Yeah, that works if it's relatively small but it isn't a viable alternative for a public company which, by definition, has shareholders."
Sure you can have shareholders. It's just that they're called "Partners". Nothing stopping you from having lots of them, or changing who they are frequently. Except of course that random investors out there wouldn't be interested, because "Partners" are legally responsible for the actions of the firm, while shareholders are not. That's the benefit of being a seperate legal entity. I don't see why it shouldn't come with a price. If they did eliminate the tax on dividends, the court clerks of the country would be overrun as every partnership in the country incorporated.
Don't even get me started on the fact that the dividend tax cut does not apply to shares held in a 401(k)s or IRAs (i.e. all the middle class investors) What's the possible justification for that besides a blatant handout for the rich?
"there'd be no point in people trying to "hide" income offshore or simply omitting it on their tax return"
No, they'd just hide their sales instead.
"illegal businesses who obviously don't report income (drug dealers, black market, etc.)"
They don't report sales either, and I expect under your suystem that 'black market' segment would explode.
I realize some people like mouse gestures, but I don't get it. Keyboard shortcuts seem far more powerful. More buttons than you'll ever invent gestures, less chance of error.
The only theory I've got is that mouse gestures would be convenient if your other hand is, uh, busy. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
But seriously, if there's another reason people find mouse gestures more useful than keyboard shortcuts (as opposed to just more hip), what is it?
"Remember, space is a total vacuum that allows for ultra-pure manufacturing not available on Earth. It also allows for almost unlimited power (Solar collectors), space (add modules as needed), and mineral potential (asteroid belt) for the company willing to exploit it."
All of these things are available much more cheaply on the ground. You can certainly produce just as good a vacuum on Earth, with the advantage of having non-vacuum nearby (not to mention the shipping costs). Solar collectors work down here too, and if you spend the money saved from the launch on more collectors, you make up for the atmosphere penalty and then some (Still, as big time power sources, solar collectors basically suck, they use them in space because it's all they've got). Space (add buildings as needed); do you have any concept how much warehouse/industrial space you can build for the price of a space station module?
The mineral potential of the asteroid belt?!? Pick any mineral. We don't know how much there is in the asteroid belt. We do know there is some enormous quantity on Earth that is too expensive to mine to make it worthwhile (too deep, embeded in too much worthless rock, etc.) Can you imagine how far down that curve we have to go before the asteroid belt looks attractive?
"Letting a plutocratic clique explore and stake claims to space and the solar system"
How exactly are they going to do that?
"Would they then be allowed to restrict who travels into space and who remains on earth?"
No. Why would we grant them this power? Do you really think that if say Warren Buffet is the first man to set foot on Mars, and he "claims" it, the rest of the world is just going to throw up their hands and say "Damn! Well, I guess there's nothing we can do. He CALLED it."?
"Space elevators are the key to getting up there IMO"
Why? Lifting a given mass a certain height, and accelerating it to a certain speed takes a certain amount of energy. What does holding onto a string have to do with it?
"Combine a profit mechanism with the federally-subsidized R&D"
If it was proffitable (it's not), why would you need a subsidy?
Space is really cool, yes. But it's not profitable. Companies do things because they're profitable. Millioniare playboys do things because they're cool.
Someone asks for an example of innovation being counter-productive, and you get an 'insightful'; for pointing out an example where medicine was incredibly productive, and saying it has been productive, but not as productive as you'd like since. What part of "counter-productive" are we missing here?