If you are arguing that a government can run without any taxation, then you should buy enough drugs for everyone and share them around. But you don't seem to be saying that, later on, you say "I... have no trouble paying for taxes that are used to pay for infrastructure, etc." making some arbitrary distinction between "infrastructure" and whatever it is you feel the government shouldn't be spending "your" money on.
The government should not be in the mindset of taking money from the rich strictly for giving money to the poor or supporting them in some way. That is purely redistribution of wealth. The poor do not earn that money but the rich do. The poor are going to say the rich can afford it. That type of excuse just shows the poor are jealous of the wealthy people but that doesn't mean the poor people deserve it instead by way of the government.
So here's a clue, as soon as the government taxes anything for any reason it's redistributing wealth. It really doesn't matter if it's doing this by building roads, allowing companies/people to deduct bad investments from profits on good investments, or paying for someone's education/medical-care. All of those could be good usage of government money, and probably all three could be bad (although the later one much less so, IMNSHO).
There is a difference between taxing the people and using the money to pay for items like infrastructure that are needed or used by everyone and taxing a certain group of people (i.e. the rich, which is conveniently and arbitrarily defined by a few rich people in Washington) strictly for supporting another group of people (rather than everyone). The latter is simply socialism. And yes, this even means that the welfare system shouldn't be used. Too many people just use that as a crutch to live on and therefore have no incentive to get the maximum out of life. We shouldn't be supporting those people who can actually work but medicare/medicaid for those who really need it is not a bad thing but realize *everyone* contributes to that fund through income taxes and it is an equal (albeit percentage-based) tax as far as I know.
Just because the government taxes us doesn't mean it is redistributing the wealth because the money is not necessarily given to people, especially for nothing. It is used to buy stuff that needs created (e.g. roads) or services (e.g. contract work or even defense). That is giving money to someone in exchange for goods. That is absolutely needed because the government can't make everything itself or provide everything itself (although it is trying that by starting with health care). But where it is going wrong is with targeting a specific group of people for taxes in order to pay for health care for a separate group of people which is simply taking advantage of the upper class. Why aren't the poor or the unqualified being taxed to pay for their own health care so that everyone else can be left alone? Many people are happy with what they have so why should they be taxed to pay for another's health care? That is the mistake: not using the money *from everyone* on something *everyone* can use regardless of class.
The poor and under-privileged are always wanting a fair chance in life which is understandable however wanting the rich to be taxed more in order to get what they want out of life is not a fair chance in life by any definition. It is a "chance" that is simply handed to them which would be fine except that the U.S. is a capitalist society and therefore the responsibility of charity rests with the individual, not the government, or at least it is supposed to. Nothing says that if you actually try though that the government can't help out at some level such as with student loans and scholarships for education, and maybe, just maybe, taxing only those who need health insurance and provide it to them in exchange for that tax. If you want to help pay for someone else's health care through taxation then vote for a 50% tax increase for people in your tax bracket. That's fair, right?
I have to ask, in your black-and-white world without ambiguities, what do you say about hermaphrodites? That's only the easiest and most basic response to that mistaken notion.
I'm not an expert on hermaphrodites so I can't immediately answer your question. Maybe someone who is an expert can get back to you with a good answer in a timely fashion. Better yet, how about you attempt an answer.
Of course, your sig isn't much better. Narrowing the gap between classes and increasing the standard of living for lower classes both increase the standard of living (by pretty much any reasonable measure) for everyone in the society, including the wealthy. Of course, even ignoring that, I have to wonder in what world you live that the wealthy having a few extra bucks is more important than the life of a human being who just happened to be dealt a bad hand in life. Are you sure you're a man of God? Because you keep saying that name like it means something to you.
You fail to make a distinction between the government forcing person A to give money to person B through taxation (force) versus letting person A give money to person B on their own accord which lets person A decide how much money and when to give the money, neither of which is possible when the money is forcefully taken through taxes. That isn't even considering that the money is able to be given directly to person B and is managed better than if the government is a middleman. Slashdot only provides 120 characters for a sig which does not allow me to state that I'm not against charity but I am against the government feeling it must force the wealthy to support the poor. Your "narrowing the gap between classes" assumes incorrectly that the government can take from person A to give to person B and enable the standard of living of both to increase. The math doesn't add up. The rest of your response to my sig assumes I'm against charity, which is not true, so there is no need to address it directly.
I'm against the government intervening by deciding who should be considered wealthy enough to be able to afford any arbitrary amount the government deems sufficient to give to other people. Allowing government to control and force "charity" is socialism. You can only take so much from those with money before they turn into those who are receiving money. When that occurs you have reached a socialist state where the only rich people are those in power within the government. Both ends of the giving/receiving transaction never end up actually having a standard of living that increases which is the fundamental flaw in your belief system. People are forced to work to make ends meet and are at the whim of the more powerful (compared to a capitalist-based country) government, which coincidentally is made more powerful by the wealth flowing towards them. But then again, some people actually like the government being involved in all aspects of their lives. I, on the other hand, do not need the government's help to run my life and, no sir, I am not rich; I'm just 31, single, have a good job and know how to manage my finances. I work for my money, have no trouble paying for taxes that are used to pay for infrastructure, etc. and will charity to whoever I see fit or, I may not, but that is for me to decide and no one else. For those who are for this type of system I ask you, do you give 10% of your salary to God? If not, why not? If you like the government forcefully taking money from you then you shouldn't have any trouble voluntarily giving it away. I'm sure some of you would use the excuse "I don't believe in God" to rationalize your way out of that conundrum.
1) "Theorised" is a perfectly valid spelling of that word. Putting "sic" after it demonstrates that you are a cretin.
Hey, I'm only doing what Firefox told me to do. Send your complaints to a Firefox developer. I presume you prefer to put extra letters in "aluminum" considering it sounds like you are from the UK (using "s" rather than "z"). Your insults demonstrate you are an ass and lack the ability to debate.
2) Evolution is a well-tested fact. You're welcome to look it up yourself; I've decided not to argue with the feebleminded any more.
Well your reply is typical of someone who believes in evolution which is to demean the opposition and act elitist towards them. The following quote is from another post I made a few hours before I wrote the post to which you replied and it describes your reply exactly: "Evolutionists just close their ears and act like a child not wanting to hear the other side of the debate because they are elitist by thinking they are right and everyone else is either insane or just stupid for disagreeing. I'll personally listen to arguments for evolution, as long as they aren't biased." By the way asswipe, if you are going to call me a cretin then you should hyphenate "feeble-minded" otherwise your insults about spelling don't mean anything but you do prove who the real cretin is. Thank you for that and thank you for proving true my claim about evolutionists.
It so happens that currently all of the structures we've manufactured with a refractive index that is negative somewhere, have that 'somewhere' outside of the visible spectrum. This is due entirely - it is theorised [sic] - due to our aqueous origins when we were evolving eyes and doesn't make the materials any less fascinating!
Okay, now does all that still apply using the premise that we didn't evolve? Quit assuming with every other theory that the evolution theory is always correct. It will cloud your judgment and screw up your research data and hypotheses.
Life is full of delicious ambiguity, and people assume that two polar opposites (male and female) have nothing in between. But life isn't like that. Life is a spectrum, and any place we draw the line is arbitrary -- not natural. Nature has its own laws, which are not the laws of men.
Why do you feel we are exempt from Nature's/God's laws? We live in nature so why would we be exempt? We're human so should that make us exempt from Nature's/God's physical or chemical laws? We're obviously not exempt from those laws or any other for that matter. It is just human to want to add emotion or bias to something which adds ambiguity or shades of gray. In my mind God implemented and gave us our absolutes. In this case we have simply male and female. Why do you feel you must complicate that? There will obviously be variations on those concepts of male and female when put into practice but it doesn't change the fundamentals now matter how much you want it to. Some humans actually want to add shades of gray in the hopes of making the outcome of their particular situation be in their favor. Example: Saying a baby isn't human until it is born is used as the rationalization for women who want to abort their babies because it is convenient for them to do so. If they can convince themselves the baby isn't human then no murder was committed. Point being, don't add ambiguity where there is none. I can understand why you would want to but just because you can doesn't mean you should. It makes situations more complicated.
The simple answer is because evolutionism is actually based on scientific evidence. ID is simply a religion that is trying to make itself look scientific so it can be lobbied to be taught in public schools.
So you are saying there is *not* any liberal agenda to teach evolution in schools in order to have one more cog in the wheel of destroying Christianity? You can say all you want that it is for scientific progress but there is a bigger plan in place. Conspiracy theorist? Not really because what I say is true. The other cogs would be removing "under God" from the Pledge, banning Christianity in schools (note that I didn't say religion in general because Islam is still allowed to be taught), the increasing allowance of Shariah law overriding U.S. law in places like Minnesota, etc. How often do teachers and professors state that evolution could be wrong, without even mentioning anything else, but just merely state that evolution is not proven. We are only guessing but it *seems* to fit *some* evidence. What is wrong with that? Would that little bit of doubt actually topple the liberal agenda and allow the sheep to learn something else? Evolution is like global warming: every time either is mentioned they are done so in such a way that they are assumed as fact and proven, and if you disagree then you just haven't been enlightened to the ways of the elitists.
By the way, direct evidence shouldn't require us to fill in gaps in order to draw the conclusions we need to draw to prove evolution is correct. No one was alive a million years ago but yet we think that based on the little "evidence", such as the incomplete fossil record, we see now that we can draw the correct conclusion about what happened. And oh, how convenient, no one can really say otherwise that it is wrong, which happens to be the evolutionists argument against Creationism. It just so happens that to the average Joe the surface of evolution seems to make sense but delving deeper produces inconsistencies and gaps, but we won't and don't talk about that, especially on this site. Evolutionists just close their ears and act like a child not wanting to hear the other side of the debate because they are elitist by thinking they are right and everyone else is either insane or just stupid for disagreeing. I'll personally listen to arguments for evolution, as long as they aren't biased.
You should use some type of alias in your config files that would never change such as "database" that represents the type of service you need to reach. This would be a CNAME in DNS. That would correlate to the cluster name of the database which is an A record in DNS. Then of course each node in the cluster would have an A record as well. Even if you had a single node this will still work and it means that for the application you can still hard code a generic service-type name in the config that is also in DNS but for management purposes you can use a more appropriate name (especially if you have more than 1 node serving that purpose). This avoids using IP addresses in config files.
'Our discovery supports the theory that some of life's ingredients formed in space and were delivered to Earth long ago by meteorite and comet impacts.'"
Again guys, you are filling in gaps with information that fits your ideal world and to support other theories but there is no direct evidence that events happened this way. There is no direct evidence that glycine can survive the impact or that it actually was transferred from space-borne objects. Example: A 30 year old brown-haired person lives in San Francisco and another one who is 50 years old lives in New York. Does that mean the one in San Francisco is the offspring (and therefore related) of the one in New York either because the person in New York traveled to San Francisco then had a child or had a child then the child moved to and grew up in San Francisco? Yeah it can mean that but without asking the people involved or seeing it happen first-hand you can't just fill in the blanks and assume you are correct. We obviously can't ask glycine where it came from so we have to see it first-hand be transferred from a comet/meteorite to Earth and remain intact and viable before we can really say for sure that supports the theory that life's ingredients came from out of this world. Something generic like 2 samples of glycine or 2 brown-haired people are too generic to conclude they are related, but feel free to make that gross assumption anyway to fit theories of evolution.
They are trying to branch out their resouces so they get have a greater flow of cash to keep them self's in business. It's kind of anoying to think people see other companies as giants and that they wan't to take over the world or something.
Wow, just, wow. I hope English isn't your first language.
In order to stay on topic I'll say this: Most companies will buy another company that sells services or products in a different market rather than just buying stock in the other company. Microsoft has done that many times then re-brands the products as their own.
Except that my accountant has her CPA - a real life honest to god certification. (Not the take-a-class-and-take-a-test mickey mouse 'certifications' of the IT industry.)
She also has a code of ethics, belongs to a serious professional organization, and has a body of law that restricts what she may or may not do and an oversight organization over the top of all of that.
That hardly means anything anymore. Just look at all the corporations that cook their books and then get in trouble by the SEC for lying. The financial crisis is due to people lying to make money. Greed is a great motivator for breaching your code of ethics.
I was looking at the stars one evening and the thought occurred to me that every star harbors a hideous mess; an immense collection of orbiting debris ranging from bloated gas giants with dozens of exotic moons to mangled chunks of gold weighing billions of tons. Those nice neat little points of light are actually solar systems, every bit as rich and complex as our own. Life, at least in primitive forms, is probably a common afterthought.
Think about the planet you're on now. Everything beyond iron is the shrapnel of stellar detonations coalesced and melted into a ball of metal orbiting the sun. Staggering quantities of baryons mushed together in weird configurations, colliding, erupting and aging for billions of years. Somewhere there is a near perfect sphere of nickel weighing five Earths and orbiting a black hole. It will be destroyed next week when it collides with and vanishes forever into the guts of an 9 billion year old brown dwarf. It will have never been observed by anything more sentient than a dusty comet.
When you really think about it the universe is creepy.
Extrasolar astronomy requires extraordinary equipment. We need to build more of it and figure out what the universe looks like below cosmological scales because we haven't got the first clue what's really out there. Humans were simply not endowed by nature with sufficient imagination to anticipate more than a small fraction of all the crazy shit we're going to find.
You paint a chaotic and violent picture of the universe. When I look up at the sky I know there are countless stars and planets out there of different colors and contents. They seem to be there in random layout with random structures however in our local Solar System everything is set just right in order for us to live.
Contrary to your viewpoint, I believe there is beauty all around us. If gravity were any stronger we couldn't survive because we would be crushed, the planets would fall into the Sun. Many seemingly universal constants are so perfectly set that if any of them were off by a minuscule amount we just couldn't exist, the Universe couldn't exist. Some people may view that as fragile but I consider it to be a work of art. The intricacies and the detail presented to us day or night from our view of the world is just simply tremendous. Water exists only on our planet (no direct evidence it exists anywhere else, especially right now, in the Universe) and it allows us to survive. Light, simple photons, also provides life for us. If the Sun were to stop shining right now we wouldn't know for 8 minutes. There are very few people who can comprehend that, let alone the immensity of the Universe. Will we ever comprehend everything there is to know about it?
As you say, we don't have a clue what all we're going to find out there but the laws we have discovered regarding chemistry and physics describe to amazing accuracy the Universe as we see it. We *have* been endowed by our Creator not only with certain unalienable rights but also the ability to recognize our own existence and especially to ask the questions Why? and How? does everything we see exist. Our Universe really is mind boggling when you stop taking simple things like water, clouds, gravity, light, and others for granted. But it is mind boggling in a miraculous and beautiful way.
It's called TAX. Everyone in the world pays it. And it only makes sense that people with higher incomes are taxed more than people who can't- that's why income tax is generally higher for rich people.
A certain amount of taxes are required in order to pay for items like infrastructure however if those who do not currently have insurance need it then make them pay for it. Making someone else pay for it is just wrong.
Contrary to what you believe, it isn't right for people with higher incomes to be taxed more. You probably just think that because it has been that way for so long but it doesn't make it right, or the best, method. You can only tax people so much before they have no money left. In many cases the rich make the world go around because of the excess income they have to spend but that will dwindle the more they are taxed. The tax breaks they get for giving to charity are also going away (thanks to Obama) so what incentive do they have to continue giving away money? They are being taxed more as well so they have 2 reasons to horde their money. Good job Obama.
I presume you aren't one of the ones who will be affected by the higher taxes coming. I'd guess that if you are in the U.S. then you are probably in the ~$33K-~$78K tax bracket. What if you were in a much higher tax bracket? Yes you would make more money but you would be paying a lot more in taxes. Would you prefer to be taxed based on your income when its *your* income that is being taxed quite heavily? It's easy to say you prefer people to be taxed based income when you aren't one who is having your hard earned money taken away from you in vast amounts (that assumes you already pay some, albeit lower, federal taxes) such as the 28% tax rate for the ~$78K-~$168K bracket and the ~50% for those who make millions a year. "Because they can afford it" is not a valid excuse for championing that method of taxation. Jealousy would be a better word to describe it. I just joined the ranks of the ~$78K-~$168K tax bracket. Luckily I still won't have to pay for someone else's insurance but part of my increase is gobbled up by additional federal taxes both because they work based on percentages but also because the percentage will be increasing. I don't mind paying for infrastructure and other items because other people also pay for it (although not as much as I do). But to *only* tax the rich to pay for insurance for those who don't currently have it is just socialism and unfairly targeting a certain group of people (profiling anyone?) arbitrarily defined by a smaller group of people. Those who prefer that want someone to take care of them and/or to level the playing field by taking money from the rich people because they are just jealous of the rich. One side effect though is that it gives the government more control of the people. I bet if Obama decided that your tax bracket needed to be taxed to support socialized medicine you would be singing a different tune. All of a sudden your income level becomes a member of the "higher income" group you mentioned.
As far as who decides where the money goes, if you haven't already noticed, the people in Washington are not paying attention to what the people want. Therefore democracy is breaking down. Many people, including senior citizens, do not want socialized medicine because they know how well it has *not* worked elsewhere. Those who complain are branded idiots with the premise that the government knows better than the people how to take care of us. But Congressmen aren't listening; therefore they are the only ones deciding where the money is going and it is going towards socialized medicine. I don't know about you (who seems to prefer hand-holding) but I prefer to always be in control of my money. I at least can make better decisions than a gov't who wants to spend money to save money and who believes it just grows on trees. I can also choose who I want to give my money to as charity rather than some fat cat deciding when and how much of my money to take to give to some
Honestly, the studio or publisher that did this needs to get hit hard. Ads are for freeloaders, not for paying customers.
I assume your logic here only applies to games? The reason I ask is because that logic doesn't apply to television where everyone has to pay (for cable at least, not broadcast) and they still get commercials with the reason from the cable companies of course being that without the commercials we would have to pay even more. Of course, pay even more on top of base amount for premium channels and you finally can get away from commercials from what I last heard. I don't pay for the premium channels so maybe that has changed somewhat.
Also, in a roommate situation, it becomes a little unfair to evenly split the electric bill if only one tennant [sic] is charging a car.
Then don't split it evenly. If you already have a roommate and then acquire the car then you'll easily be able to determine what the added cost will be for charging the car, otherwise just split the bill appropriately. It should be possible to calculate the kw/hour used for charging the car that you can do the math once you get the bill.
Closing the gaps in climate modeling != economic recovery.
Hence the reason why the stimulus plan was really an excuse for the democrats to push through massive wasteful spending associated with the typical liberal agenda. Obama wanted to get it pushed through very fast in order to have all that spending for all the wrong reasons get passed under the radar except his reasoning to the American people was that it would literally save the economy. It is kind of hard to save it though when the money won't even be available for up to a year or more after the bill was signed into law. It is also hard to believe how a few extra days of reading what you are voting on could literally destroy the economy but if Obama says it then it must be true.
that evolution could be supported based on a mere 40 years worth of "evidence" based on the following:
He used data gathered in America, in which 1,244 women and 997 men were followed through four decades of life. Their attractiveness was assessed from photographs taken during the study, which also collected data on the number of children they had.
If you were wondering who won, it was the British.
I know you were probably joking but someone should mod you informative for those people who are too stupid/ignorant to know who won. I say that because I was recently interviewing someone from the West Coast of the U.S. (I'm in WV) and the person did not catch the fact that we said we were located in *West* Virginia 3 times during the course of the interview. The person even made a note to ask how close we were to a particular airport because he said he has been to Virginia in the past. Someone needed to remind him of the Civil War and what happened afterward. Your comment reminded me of that, which just happened a couple weeks ago.
An HD movie in 3 minutes? Even if they are calling "480p" HD, there is no way in hell that is transfering wirelessly in 3 minutes to a cellular device.
Even if the cellular network could handle that throughput, the phone could not. Without a TCP Offload Engine, a CPU is progressively taxed the higher a system's throughput is when transferring data. With the bandwidth required to download an HD movie in 3 minutes the phone's processor just couldn't handle the processing required but TCP is notoriously bulky and I don't think it is used by cell phones so maybe whatever transport protocol they use can support that kind of throughput with little overhead. Any one know for sure?
Microsoft's solution is to keep all editing inside the Office suite, which requires checkout and checkin of each individual document.
Actually, nothing requires you to checkout or checkin a document. Only your company procedures would require those actions in order to prevent someone from modifying a document out of turn. I can attempt to edit a document and if it isn't checked out but someone still edited it then I *am* notified that someone is already editing it. Obviously it would be stupid for me to continue and make changes because they will just be overwritten when the person who started editing before me saves their changes. Now, had the person actually performed the checkout action then the webpage would have shown the user's name who is currently editing the document. The name would have been displayed in the "Checked Out To" column of the webpage. I then would know to not try editing the document. What would happen if I did? My changes would be overwritten by whoever took a snapshot of the file before I did.
We use Sharepoint at work and there are still people who insist on editing docs w/o first checking them out. I then go to edit them, thinking they are not being accessed, then get annoyed when I'm told by Word "this document is currently open for editing by ". So Sharepoint won't force you to checkout/in documents. That is still a procedural thing that organizations using Sharepoint must try to enforce upon their employees. Also, you can save changes to Sharepoint using the Explorer view which accesses the documents using a Windows file share-type access. This bypasses the versioning feature I believe and allows you to interact with the document database a little differently. This feature is only supported in IE though.
Also, I agree with another person who said that Sharepoint responsive degrades the more docs you have in the database. The one we have at work can be horribly slow sometimes. You can click on a link and it just doesn't load. You can upload a 30 Megabyte file (.doc,.xls,.ppt,.vsd....yes, some of our files are that big or bigger) and Sharepoint will basically crash (i.e. the database crashes I believe). The server basically has to be restarted when that happens. Suffice it to say that Sharepoint doesn't work well with large files or a lot of files.
However, Firefox works with Sharepoint so you aren't required to use IE unless you want certain features. But you can checkout/in documents with Firefox I believe. And Sharepoint isn't requiring you to use Microsoft file formats so your perception they are forcing customers into a silo is incorrect. They properly *attempt* to integrate their products just like Adobe tries to integrate the applications that constitute their Creative Suite. It is up to the customers to decide whether they want to use all those components or only a select few. If they choose to do so they will benefit from the integration Microsoft has done to make the workflow smoother for customers (such as being able to checkin a document from within one of the Office apps).
What's really strange is they're using 64 bits to express a charge amount. How many people are charging manned missions to Mars or the military invasion of a superpower to their Visa? A 64 bit credit limit must be quite the status symbol.
They are simply preparing for Obama to sign up the U.S. for a line of credit. 64 bits still may not be enough to hold the balance though. The only way to make money by spending money is when you use the credit cards that offer cash back. Of course you don't actually net anything with those award programs but Obama doesn't seem to realize that. I thought we already got the idiot out of office?
Even if the software is free, it would be reassuring to see the government encourage further development by offering the coders behind these libraries some sort of honorarium - a public recognition that their work is being used for big things. Even if it's the slap-in-the-face One Dollar honorarium, public acknowledgement is big.
Open source is used in many places throughout the government. This is just one website for one department of the government. It is good that OSS works for them in this case but why publicly recognize the coders or the contractors who put all the components together to make the website what it is? This was a job just like any other contract job. Why recognize the contractors in this case but no others throughout the other departments of the government that hire contractors who end up using OSS in their designs? I don't expect public recognition for any OSS that I deploy as a contractor for the DOJ so what is so special about these contractors?
Learn how to work on a team, work with QA, and learn how to deliver products.
Sounds more like software engineering. At the local university near me in north central WV, software engineering is a master's program. I think that some of that should be placed into an undergrad program but the CS programs near me at various colleges do not put any software engineering courses in their CS curriculum. In fact, where I got my BS from they didn't even show how to use a debugger but I did learn Java, C, C++, Ada, and Assembly, as far as languages are concerned.
Slashdot Mirror
If you are arguing that a government can run without any taxation, then you should buy enough drugs for everyone and share them around. But you don't seem to be saying that, later on, you say "I ... have no trouble paying for taxes that are used to pay for infrastructure, etc." making some arbitrary distinction between "infrastructure" and whatever it is you feel the government shouldn't be spending "your" money on.
The government should not be in the mindset of taking money from the rich strictly for giving money to the poor or supporting them in some way. That is purely redistribution of wealth. The poor do not earn that money but the rich do. The poor are going to say the rich can afford it. That type of excuse just shows the poor are jealous of the wealthy people but that doesn't mean the poor people deserve it instead by way of the government.
So here's a clue, as soon as the government taxes anything for any reason it's redistributing wealth. It really doesn't matter if it's doing this by building roads, allowing companies/people to deduct bad investments from profits on good investments, or paying for someone's education/medical-care. All of those could be good usage of government money, and probably all three could be bad (although the later one much less so, IMNSHO).
There is a difference between taxing the people and using the money to pay for items like infrastructure that are needed or used by everyone and taxing a certain group of people (i.e. the rich, which is conveniently and arbitrarily defined by a few rich people in Washington) strictly for supporting another group of people (rather than everyone). The latter is simply socialism. And yes, this even means that the welfare system shouldn't be used. Too many people just use that as a crutch to live on and therefore have no incentive to get the maximum out of life. We shouldn't be supporting those people who can actually work but medicare/medicaid for those who really need it is not a bad thing but realize *everyone* contributes to that fund through income taxes and it is an equal (albeit percentage-based) tax as far as I know.
Just because the government taxes us doesn't mean it is redistributing the wealth because the money is not necessarily given to people, especially for nothing. It is used to buy stuff that needs created (e.g. roads) or services (e.g. contract work or even defense). That is giving money to someone in exchange for goods. That is absolutely needed because the government can't make everything itself or provide everything itself (although it is trying that by starting with health care). But where it is going wrong is with targeting a specific group of people for taxes in order to pay for health care for a separate group of people which is simply taking advantage of the upper class. Why aren't the poor or the unqualified being taxed to pay for their own health care so that everyone else can be left alone? Many people are happy with what they have so why should they be taxed to pay for another's health care? That is the mistake: not using the money *from everyone* on something *everyone* can use regardless of class.
The poor and under-privileged are always wanting a fair chance in life which is understandable however wanting the rich to be taxed more in order to get what they want out of life is not a fair chance in life by any definition. It is a "chance" that is simply handed to them which would be fine except that the U.S. is a capitalist society and therefore the responsibility of charity rests with the individual, not the government, or at least it is supposed to. Nothing says that if you actually try though that the government can't help out at some level such as with student loans and scholarships for education, and maybe, just maybe, taxing only those who need health insurance and provide it to them in exchange for that tax. If you want to help pay for someone else's health care through taxation then vote for a 50% tax increase for people in your tax bracket. That's fair, right?
I have to ask, in your black-and-white world without ambiguities, what do you say about hermaphrodites? That's only the easiest and most basic response to that mistaken notion.
I'm not an expert on hermaphrodites so I can't immediately answer your question. Maybe someone who is an expert can get back to you with a good answer in a timely fashion. Better yet, how about you attempt an answer.
Of course, your sig isn't much better. Narrowing the gap between classes and increasing the standard of living for lower classes both increase the standard of living (by pretty much any reasonable measure) for everyone in the society, including the wealthy. Of course, even ignoring that, I have to wonder in what world you live that the wealthy having a few extra bucks is more important than the life of a human being who just happened to be dealt a bad hand in life. Are you sure you're a man of God? Because you keep saying that name like it means something to you.
You fail to make a distinction between the government forcing person A to give money to person B through taxation (force) versus letting person A give money to person B on their own accord which lets person A decide how much money and when to give the money, neither of which is possible when the money is forcefully taken through taxes. That isn't even considering that the money is able to be given directly to person B and is managed better than if the government is a middleman. Slashdot only provides 120 characters for a sig which does not allow me to state that I'm not against charity but I am against the government feeling it must force the wealthy to support the poor. Your "narrowing the gap between classes" assumes incorrectly that the government can take from person A to give to person B and enable the standard of living of both to increase. The math doesn't add up. The rest of your response to my sig assumes I'm against charity, which is not true, so there is no need to address it directly.
I'm against the government intervening by deciding who should be considered wealthy enough to be able to afford any arbitrary amount the government deems sufficient to give to other people. Allowing government to control and force "charity" is socialism. You can only take so much from those with money before they turn into those who are receiving money. When that occurs you have reached a socialist state where the only rich people are those in power within the government. Both ends of the giving/receiving transaction never end up actually having a standard of living that increases which is the fundamental flaw in your belief system. People are forced to work to make ends meet and are at the whim of the more powerful (compared to a capitalist-based country) government, which coincidentally is made more powerful by the wealth flowing towards them. But then again, some people actually like the government being involved in all aspects of their lives. I, on the other hand, do not need the government's help to run my life and, no sir, I am not rich; I'm just 31, single, have a good job and know how to manage my finances. I work for my money, have no trouble paying for taxes that are used to pay for infrastructure, etc. and will charity to whoever I see fit or, I may not, but that is for me to decide and no one else. For those who are for this type of system I ask you, do you give 10% of your salary to God? If not, why not? If you like the government forcefully taking money from you then you shouldn't have any trouble voluntarily giving it away. I'm sure some of you would use the excuse "I don't believe in God" to rationalize your way out of that conundrum.
1) "Theorised" is a perfectly valid spelling of that word. Putting "sic" after it demonstrates that you are a cretin.
Hey, I'm only doing what Firefox told me to do. Send your complaints to a Firefox developer. I presume you prefer to put extra letters in "aluminum" considering it sounds like you are from the UK (using "s" rather than "z"). Your insults demonstrate you are an ass and lack the ability to debate.
2) Evolution is a well-tested fact. You're welcome to look it up yourself; I've decided not to argue with the feebleminded any more.
Well your reply is typical of someone who believes in evolution which is to demean the opposition and act elitist towards them. The following quote is from another post I made a few hours before I wrote the post to which you replied and it describes your reply exactly: "Evolutionists just close their ears and act like a child not wanting to hear the other side of the debate because they are elitist by thinking they are right and everyone else is either insane or just stupid for disagreeing. I'll personally listen to arguments for evolution, as long as they aren't biased." By the way asswipe, if you are going to call me a cretin then you should hyphenate "feeble-minded" otherwise your insults about spelling don't mean anything but you do prove who the real cretin is. Thank you for that and thank you for proving true my claim about evolutionists.
It so happens that currently all of the structures we've manufactured with a refractive index that is negative somewhere, have that 'somewhere' outside of the visible spectrum. This is due entirely - it is theorised [sic] - due to our aqueous origins when we were evolving eyes and doesn't make the materials any less fascinating!
Okay, now does all that still apply using the premise that we didn't evolve? Quit assuming with every other theory that the evolution theory is always correct. It will cloud your judgment and screw up your research data and hypotheses.
Life is full of delicious ambiguity, and people assume that two polar opposites (male and female) have nothing in between. But life isn't like that. Life is a spectrum, and any place we draw the line is arbitrary -- not natural. Nature has its own laws, which are not the laws of men.
Why do you feel we are exempt from Nature's/God's laws? We live in nature so why would we be exempt? We're human so should that make us exempt from Nature's/God's physical or chemical laws? We're obviously not exempt from those laws or any other for that matter. It is just human to want to add emotion or bias to something which adds ambiguity or shades of gray. In my mind God implemented and gave us our absolutes. In this case we have simply male and female. Why do you feel you must complicate that? There will obviously be variations on those concepts of male and female when put into practice but it doesn't change the fundamentals now matter how much you want it to. Some humans actually want to add shades of gray in the hopes of making the outcome of their particular situation be in their favor. Example: Saying a baby isn't human until it is born is used as the rationalization for women who want to abort their babies because it is convenient for them to do so. If they can convince themselves the baby isn't human then no murder was committed. Point being, don't add ambiguity where there is none. I can understand why you would want to but just because you can doesn't mean you should. It makes situations more complicated.
The simple answer is because evolutionism is actually based on scientific evidence. ID is simply a religion that is trying to make itself look scientific so it can be lobbied to be taught in public schools.
So you are saying there is *not* any liberal agenda to teach evolution in schools in order to have one more cog in the wheel of destroying Christianity? You can say all you want that it is for scientific progress but there is a bigger plan in place. Conspiracy theorist? Not really because what I say is true. The other cogs would be removing "under God" from the Pledge, banning Christianity in schools (note that I didn't say religion in general because Islam is still allowed to be taught), the increasing allowance of Shariah law overriding U.S. law in places like Minnesota, etc. How often do teachers and professors state that evolution could be wrong, without even mentioning anything else, but just merely state that evolution is not proven. We are only guessing but it *seems* to fit *some* evidence. What is wrong with that? Would that little bit of doubt actually topple the liberal agenda and allow the sheep to learn something else? Evolution is like global warming: every time either is mentioned they are done so in such a way that they are assumed as fact and proven, and if you disagree then you just haven't been enlightened to the ways of the elitists.
By the way, direct evidence shouldn't require us to fill in gaps in order to draw the conclusions we need to draw to prove evolution is correct. No one was alive a million years ago but yet we think that based on the little "evidence", such as the incomplete fossil record, we see now that we can draw the correct conclusion about what happened. And oh, how convenient, no one can really say otherwise that it is wrong, which happens to be the evolutionists argument against Creationism. It just so happens that to the average Joe the surface of evolution seems to make sense but delving deeper produces inconsistencies and gaps, but we won't and don't talk about that, especially on this site. Evolutionists just close their ears and act like a child not wanting to hear the other side of the debate because they are elitist by thinking they are right and everyone else is either insane or just stupid for disagreeing. I'll personally listen to arguments for evolution, as long as they aren't biased.
You should use some type of alias in your config files that would never change such as "database" that represents the type of service you need to reach. This would be a CNAME in DNS. That would correlate to the cluster name of the database which is an A record in DNS. Then of course each node in the cluster would have an A record as well. Even if you had a single node this will still work and it means that for the application you can still hard code a generic service-type name in the config that is also in DNS but for management purposes you can use a more appropriate name (especially if you have more than 1 node serving that purpose). This avoids using IP addresses in config files.
'Our discovery supports the theory that some of life's ingredients formed in space and were delivered to Earth long ago by meteorite and comet impacts.'"
Again guys, you are filling in gaps with information that fits your ideal world and to support other theories but there is no direct evidence that events happened this way. There is no direct evidence that glycine can survive the impact or that it actually was transferred from space-borne objects. Example: A 30 year old brown-haired person lives in San Francisco and another one who is 50 years old lives in New York. Does that mean the one in San Francisco is the offspring (and therefore related) of the one in New York either because the person in New York traveled to San Francisco then had a child or had a child then the child moved to and grew up in San Francisco? Yeah it can mean that but without asking the people involved or seeing it happen first-hand you can't just fill in the blanks and assume you are correct. We obviously can't ask glycine where it came from so we have to see it first-hand be transferred from a comet/meteorite to Earth and remain intact and viable before we can really say for sure that supports the theory that life's ingredients came from out of this world. Something generic like 2 samples of glycine or 2 brown-haired people are too generic to conclude they are related, but feel free to make that gross assumption anyway to fit theories of evolution.
They are trying to branch out their resouces so they get have a greater flow of cash to keep them self's in business. It's kind of anoying to think people see other companies as giants and that they wan't to take over the world or something.
Wow, just, wow. I hope English isn't your first language.
In order to stay on topic I'll say this: Most companies will buy another company that sells services or products in a different market rather than just buying stock in the other company. Microsoft has done that many times then re-brands the products as their own.
Except that my accountant has her CPA - a real life honest to god certification. (Not the take-a-class-and-take-a-test mickey mouse 'certifications' of the IT industry.) She also has a code of ethics, belongs to a serious professional organization, and has a body of law that restricts what she may or may not do and an oversight organization over the top of all of that.
That hardly means anything anymore. Just look at all the corporations that cook their books and then get in trouble by the SEC for lying. The financial crisis is due to people lying to make money. Greed is a great motivator for breaching your code of ethics.
BS. Your accountant is bound by US law. If he embezzles your company's money, he goes to jail.
BS. Your accountant is bound by US law. If he embezzles your company's money and is caught and convicted, he goes to jail.
There, fixed that for you.
I was looking at the stars one evening and the thought occurred to me that every star harbors a hideous mess; an immense collection of orbiting debris ranging from bloated gas giants with dozens of exotic moons to mangled chunks of gold weighing billions of tons. Those nice neat little points of light are actually solar systems, every bit as rich and complex as our own. Life, at least in primitive forms, is probably a common afterthought.
Think about the planet you're on now. Everything beyond iron is the shrapnel of stellar detonations coalesced and melted into a ball of metal orbiting the sun. Staggering quantities of baryons mushed together in weird configurations, colliding, erupting and aging for billions of years. Somewhere there is a near perfect sphere of nickel weighing five Earths and orbiting a black hole. It will be destroyed next week when it collides with and vanishes forever into the guts of an 9 billion year old brown dwarf. It will have never been observed by anything more sentient than a dusty comet.
When you really think about it the universe is creepy.
Extrasolar astronomy requires extraordinary equipment. We need to build more of it and figure out what the universe looks like below cosmological scales because we haven't got the first clue what's really out there. Humans were simply not endowed by nature with sufficient imagination to anticipate more than a small fraction of all the crazy shit we're going to find.
You paint a chaotic and violent picture of the universe. When I look up at the sky I know there are countless stars and planets out there of different colors and contents. They seem to be there in random layout with random structures however in our local Solar System everything is set just right in order for us to live.
Contrary to your viewpoint, I believe there is beauty all around us. If gravity were any stronger we couldn't survive because we would be crushed, the planets would fall into the Sun. Many seemingly universal constants are so perfectly set that if any of them were off by a minuscule amount we just couldn't exist, the Universe couldn't exist. Some people may view that as fragile but I consider it to be a work of art. The intricacies and the detail presented to us day or night from our view of the world is just simply tremendous. Water exists only on our planet (no direct evidence it exists anywhere else, especially right now, in the Universe) and it allows us to survive. Light, simple photons, also provides life for us. If the Sun were to stop shining right now we wouldn't know for 8 minutes. There are very few people who can comprehend that, let alone the immensity of the Universe. Will we ever comprehend everything there is to know about it?
As you say, we don't have a clue what all we're going to find out there but the laws we have discovered regarding chemistry and physics describe to amazing accuracy the Universe as we see it. We *have* been endowed by our Creator not only with certain unalienable rights but also the ability to recognize our own existence and especially to ask the questions Why? and How? does everything we see exist. Our Universe really is mind boggling when you stop taking simple things like water, clouds, gravity, light, and others for granted. But it is mind boggling in a miraculous and beautiful way.
Modern apes maintain the ancestral 'pant-pant' laugh when they are tickled during play, and this evolved into the human 'ha-ha.'
Really? Where is the direct evidence to support this claim? Any research I can read? Citations?
It's called TAX. Everyone in the world pays it. And it only makes sense that people with higher incomes are taxed more than people who can't- that's why income tax is generally higher for rich people.
A certain amount of taxes are required in order to pay for items like infrastructure however if those who do not currently have insurance need it then make them pay for it. Making someone else pay for it is just wrong.
Contrary to what you believe, it isn't right for people with higher incomes to be taxed more. You probably just think that because it has been that way for so long but it doesn't make it right, or the best, method. You can only tax people so much before they have no money left. In many cases the rich make the world go around because of the excess income they have to spend but that will dwindle the more they are taxed. The tax breaks they get for giving to charity are also going away (thanks to Obama) so what incentive do they have to continue giving away money? They are being taxed more as well so they have 2 reasons to horde their money. Good job Obama.
I presume you aren't one of the ones who will be affected by the higher taxes coming. I'd guess that if you are in the U.S. then you are probably in the ~$33K-~$78K tax bracket. What if you were in a much higher tax bracket? Yes you would make more money but you would be paying a lot more in taxes. Would you prefer to be taxed based on your income when its *your* income that is being taxed quite heavily? It's easy to say you prefer people to be taxed based income when you aren't one who is having your hard earned money taken away from you in vast amounts (that assumes you already pay some, albeit lower, federal taxes) such as the 28% tax rate for the ~$78K-~$168K bracket and the ~50% for those who make millions a year. "Because they can afford it" is not a valid excuse for championing that method of taxation. Jealousy would be a better word to describe it. I just joined the ranks of the ~$78K-~$168K tax bracket. Luckily I still won't have to pay for someone else's insurance but part of my increase is gobbled up by additional federal taxes both because they work based on percentages but also because the percentage will be increasing. I don't mind paying for infrastructure and other items because other people also pay for it (although not as much as I do). But to *only* tax the rich to pay for insurance for those who don't currently have it is just socialism and unfairly targeting a certain group of people (profiling anyone?) arbitrarily defined by a smaller group of people. Those who prefer that want someone to take care of them and/or to level the playing field by taking money from the rich people because they are just jealous of the rich. One side effect though is that it gives the government more control of the people. I bet if Obama decided that your tax bracket needed to be taxed to support socialized medicine you would be singing a different tune. All of a sudden your income level becomes a member of the "higher income" group you mentioned.
As far as who decides where the money goes, if you haven't already noticed, the people in Washington are not paying attention to what the people want. Therefore democracy is breaking down. Many people, including senior citizens, do not want socialized medicine because they know how well it has *not* worked elsewhere. Those who complain are branded idiots with the premise that the government knows better than the people how to take care of us. But Congressmen aren't listening; therefore they are the only ones deciding where the money is going and it is going towards socialized medicine. I don't know about you (who seems to prefer hand-holding) but I prefer to always be in control of my money. I at least can make better decisions than a gov't who wants to spend money to save money and who believes it just grows on trees. I can also choose who I want to give my money to as charity rather than some fat cat deciding when and how much of my money to take to give to some
Honestly, the studio or publisher that did this needs to get hit hard. Ads are for freeloaders, not for paying customers.
I assume your logic here only applies to games? The reason I ask is because that logic doesn't apply to television where everyone has to pay (for cable at least, not broadcast) and they still get commercials with the reason from the cable companies of course being that without the commercials we would have to pay even more. Of course, pay even more on top of base amount for premium channels and you finally can get away from commercials from what I last heard. I don't pay for the premium channels so maybe that has changed somewhat.
the price, go here. It is currently slated for under $30k.
Also, in a roommate situation, it becomes a little unfair to evenly split the electric bill if only one tennant [sic] is charging a car.
Then don't split it evenly. If you already have a roommate and then acquire the car then you'll easily be able to determine what the added cost will be for charging the car, otherwise just split the bill appropriately. It should be possible to calculate the kw/hour used for charging the car that you can do the math once you get the bill.
Closing the gaps in climate modeling != economic recovery.
Hence the reason why the stimulus plan was really an excuse for the democrats to push through massive wasteful spending associated with the typical liberal agenda. Obama wanted to get it pushed through very fast in order to have all that spending for all the wrong reasons get passed under the radar except his reasoning to the American people was that it would literally save the economy. It is kind of hard to save it though when the money won't even be available for up to a year or more after the bill was signed into law. It is also hard to believe how a few extra days of reading what you are voting on could literally destroy the economy but if Obama says it then it must be true.
that evolution could be supported based on a mere 40 years worth of "evidence" based on the following:
He used data gathered in America, in which 1,244 women and 997 men were followed through four decades of life. Their attractiveness was assessed from photographs taken during the study, which also collected data on the number of children they had.
Quite a leap I must say.
If you were wondering who won, it was the British.
I know you were probably joking but someone should mod you informative for those people who are too stupid/ignorant to know who won. I say that because I was recently interviewing someone from the West Coast of the U.S. (I'm in WV) and the person did not catch the fact that we said we were located in *West* Virginia 3 times during the course of the interview. The person even made a note to ask how close we were to a particular airport because he said he has been to Virginia in the past. Someone needed to remind him of the Civil War and what happened afterward. Your comment reminded me of that, which just happened a couple weeks ago.
An HD movie in 3 minutes? Even if they are calling "480p" HD, there is no way in hell that is transfering wirelessly in 3 minutes to a cellular device.
Even if the cellular network could handle that throughput, the phone could not. Without a TCP Offload Engine, a CPU is progressively taxed the higher a system's throughput is when transferring data. With the bandwidth required to download an HD movie in 3 minutes the phone's processor just couldn't handle the processing required but TCP is notoriously bulky and I don't think it is used by cell phones so maybe whatever transport protocol they use can support that kind of throughput with little overhead. Any one know for sure?
Microsoft's solution is to keep all editing inside the Office suite, which requires checkout and checkin of each individual document.
Actually, nothing requires you to checkout or checkin a document. Only your company procedures would require those actions in order to prevent someone from modifying a document out of turn. I can attempt to edit a document and if it isn't checked out but someone still edited it then I *am* notified that someone is already editing it. Obviously it would be stupid for me to continue and make changes because they will just be overwritten when the person who started editing before me saves their changes. Now, had the person actually performed the checkout action then the webpage would have shown the user's name who is currently editing the document. The name would have been displayed in the "Checked Out To" column of the webpage. I then would know to not try editing the document. What would happen if I did? My changes would be overwritten by whoever took a snapshot of the file before I did.
We use Sharepoint at work and there are still people who insist on editing docs w/o first checking them out. I then go to edit them, thinking they are not being accessed, then get annoyed when I'm told by Word "this document is currently open for editing by ". So Sharepoint won't force you to checkout/in documents. That is still a procedural thing that organizations using Sharepoint must try to enforce upon their employees. Also, you can save changes to Sharepoint using the Explorer view which accesses the documents using a Windows file share-type access. This bypasses the versioning feature I believe and allows you to interact with the document database a little differently. This feature is only supported in IE though.
Also, I agree with another person who said that Sharepoint responsive degrades the more docs you have in the database. The one we have at work can be horribly slow sometimes. You can click on a link and it just doesn't load. You can upload a 30 Megabyte file (.doc, .xls, .ppt, .vsd ....yes, some of our files are that big or bigger) and Sharepoint will basically crash (i.e. the database crashes I believe). The server basically has to be restarted when that happens. Suffice it to say that Sharepoint doesn't work well with large files or a lot of files.
However, Firefox works with Sharepoint so you aren't required to use IE unless you want certain features. But you can checkout/in documents with Firefox I believe. And Sharepoint isn't requiring you to use Microsoft file formats so your perception they are forcing customers into a silo is incorrect. They properly *attempt* to integrate their products just like Adobe tries to integrate the applications that constitute their Creative Suite. It is up to the customers to decide whether they want to use all those components or only a select few. If they choose to do so they will benefit from the integration Microsoft has done to make the workflow smoother for customers (such as being able to checkin a document from within one of the Office apps).
What's really strange is they're using 64 bits to express a charge amount. How many people are charging manned missions to Mars or the military invasion of a superpower to their Visa? A 64 bit credit limit must be quite the status symbol.
They are simply preparing for Obama to sign up the U.S. for a line of credit. 64 bits still may not be enough to hold the balance though. The only way to make money by spending money is when you use the credit cards that offer cash back. Of course you don't actually net anything with those award programs but Obama doesn't seem to realize that. I thought we already got the idiot out of office?
Even if the software is free, it would be reassuring to see the government encourage further development by offering the coders behind these libraries some sort of honorarium - a public recognition that their work is being used for big things. Even if it's the slap-in-the-face One Dollar honorarium, public acknowledgement is big.
Open source is used in many places throughout the government. This is just one website for one department of the government. It is good that OSS works for them in this case but why publicly recognize the coders or the contractors who put all the components together to make the website what it is? This was a job just like any other contract job. Why recognize the contractors in this case but no others throughout the other departments of the government that hire contractors who end up using OSS in their designs? I don't expect public recognition for any OSS that I deploy as a contractor for the DOJ so what is so special about these contractors?
Learn how to work on a team, work with QA, and learn how to deliver products.
Sounds more like software engineering. At the local university near me in north central WV, software engineering is a master's program. I think that some of that should be placed into an undergrad program but the CS programs near me at various colleges do not put any software engineering courses in their CS curriculum. In fact, where I got my BS from they didn't even show how to use a debugger but I did learn Java, C, C++, Ada, and Assembly, as far as languages are concerned.