While money is fairly unlimited, resources are not. In particular, the fuel used to send a rocketship into space isn't ever coming back.
The alternative is to burn up all that earth-bound fuel moving people and resources around on the earth for just a little longer until it's all gone anyway - and you have no way to get off the earth for more supplies. Because those resources are only limited ON EARTH.
Humanity is doomed. Might as well start the new Dark Ages now. These crazy statist fear-mongers will stop every bit of progress anyone ever proposes because it "might be dangerous" or it could "harm the environment" (or, more to the point "humans are a viral infection"). Reverting to hunter-gatherer lifestyle run by a totalitarian government is the only thing that will ever satisfy them.
Thanks, that puts a better perspective on it than the OP. And I get where you're coming from - I've worked for some pretty clueless managers myself. I've never been in software company, though, always internal development.
I'm actually pretty satisfied where I am even though there are plenty of political landmines to navigate. I've got plenty of autonomy, I have the best developers in the shop on my team, and I even get to do some the coding myself sometimes.
I know you are speaking out of ignorance (and/or some really bad experiences with "managers"), and I wish I had time to provide more insight for you. Instead, I'll tell you why you're so wrong. Many managers (like me) are promoted from the ranks. I never really wanted to manage people - I did it before and didn't like it - but was thrown into the position anyway. I spent many years coding and implemented many successful projects. I still do that, and even dig down into code now and the, but my team does most of that. They are good at it, but they need me managing the project, running interference with upper management and business folks, designing the architectures, and many many other things that need to be done. They can't do these larger projects without me.
Frankly, I wonder if you have ever done any real software engineering - you don't seem to have much understanding of how large projects are done.
As opposed to "scientists" like the ones in this article? The flaws of this supposed study are layered so deeply they form a nice, comfy mat you could sit upon and contemplate the existence of anything coming from it, conclusions upon conclusions that have no basis other than the fact that they reinforce each other in some way based upon chosen parameters. Real science requires allowing for many possibilities, not going with some random wacky-ass idea for correlation and running with it to the logical ends of the Earth.
The "state's rights" argument is nothing more than "state's right to discriminate". You never hear "state's rights" being bandied about for good things,
The numbers don't really matter. The fact is that the US military (and CIA, etc.) has become much more efficient at killing and controlling foreign countries. We took out the leader of Libya and didn't send in any military troops (just a bunch of "advisers"). Egypt was even easier.
That doesn't make the violent interventionism reduced - in fact if anything it has expanded. It's just done more cheaply.
We're talking about Greenpeace here. They may have had some laudable goals when they first started, but they are now nothing but an arm of the radical Agenda 21 political groups, working to destroy all property rights, liberties, and establish a totalitarian form of global government. I fail to find anything in their agenda that could benefit society positively.
I used to think that too, about a lot of media stories. But I've come to discover that typically they are both lying about a completely irrelevant issue to distract you from the real truth, which is not in the middle, but somewhere way out in left field from the view of the two "sides".
I'd say the Divider In Chief has a much more expansive and effective propaganda machine than Murdoch's media outlets could ever hope to have. You're helping spread it yourself - the very same meme that the Obama dictatorship is necessary for the security of the state, and perhaps as important, that dissident voices must be silenced.
What does this mean? That once an organized effort is providing all the starving people with food, private individuals no longer throw money at a lucky few?
That "organized" (read: more expensive) effort ends up entirely dismantling the ability of other organizations to feed, clothe, and house the needy. Instead of many different charities focused on various social issues, you have a single entity allocating money based on political expediency. Then a revenue crisis occurs, budget cuts put some portion of the population on the street and starving, and there is no longer an alternative.
It sounds like complaining that the professional firemen push out citizen fire brigades.
Single point of failure. Not good.
That's the whole point of it.
Eliminating social responsibility from the citizens and replacing it with government dependence? Yes, I'm sure that is the point of it. I'm saying that's bad, though.
Greece can go bankrupt because it is in the Eurozone and not in direct control of its own money supply. The U.S. can avoid bankruptcy by simply printing more dollars. That has ill effects, but it is not going bankrupt.
California could go bankrupt, but the FBI never will.
This is the delusion. The reality is that the U.S. is just as dependent on the Federal Reserve as Greece is on the EUC. Debt cannot create prosperity, and the Federal Reserve is already buying 61% of the US debt. Continuing in this same direction they will eventually be the ONLY ones buying it, and then the "dollar" will be good for nothing but wiping your ass.
corporate funded propaganda like fox news, the real threat to your freedom, not your government, which you VOTE for
LOL! You've really gone off the deep end, my friend, when you view a cable channel as a greater threat to your freedom that a government that has already declare they can detain you indefinitely without recourse, and can kill you without a trial.
I'm off to drop my 1040 in the mail right now, not because the TV told me to, but because the IRS can freeze my bank accounts and seize my home. Should I instead be worried about MSNBC conducting a paramilitary raid on my home?
I don't know much about the US welfare system, so it might well be a complete disaster, but in general the state welfare model can be made blind to all this bias, and in most of the developed world, that's exactly the point of it.
It's also completely lacking in compassion, pushes out private charity, and is subject to allocation by politics. I can't see how that's better, especially when you consider the administrative overhead involved in collecting and distributing, which is always higher in large bureaucracies.
And so they opted for a "tyranny of the minority" instead, which is also what they got.
Yea, sure, the United States has been a tyranny for 230 years. Another indoctrinated puppet without critical thinking skills. What a surprise. I see the traitors are getting their money's worth out of that $80 billion a year creating a compliant population.
Maybe, just maybe, the problem is a major departure from the principles of the Constitution, rather than your regurgitated criticism of it as the cause of all ills.
Check your premises. The Constitution is not a collectivist document. The framers were quite disparaging of Democracy, which they called the "tyranny of the majority". Therefore the Constitution was written to protect individual rights, not collectivist rights. That's why it's called a Republic, with power residing at the lowest level, and flowing up as required by agreement. So it is not sufficient for most people to give up their rights, as you describe, but requires that every last person give up their rights.
You just went on to, what, suggest that public works projects might leave your descendants slaves to a totalitarian regime?
Well it's looking at a bigger picture, really. This type of research funding is generally a good thing, and will benefit everyone in the long run. But debt is a bad thing, and will harm everyone in the long run. When the debt is $16 trillion and growing, and unfunded obligations are $118 trillion and growing, and the largest external creditor is a totalitarian regime (China), you really need to set some priorities first.
You chose an inflammatory topic, and it was a stupid choice.
That's quite obvious at this point, you are correct. Yet these emotional issues are being used to drum up support and divert attention from the substantive issues, so they are difficult to avoid.
Slashdot Mirror
While money is fairly unlimited, resources are not. In particular, the fuel used to send a rocketship into space isn't ever coming back.
The alternative is to burn up all that earth-bound fuel moving people and resources around on the earth for just a little longer until it's all gone anyway - and you have no way to get off the earth for more supplies. Because those resources are only limited ON EARTH.
Humanity is doomed. Might as well start the new Dark Ages now. These crazy statist fear-mongers will stop every bit of progress anyone ever proposes because it "might be dangerous" or it could "harm the environment" (or, more to the point "humans are a viral infection"). Reverting to hunter-gatherer lifestyle run by a totalitarian government is the only thing that will ever satisfy them.
It could place providers in the position of requiring warrants for all law enforcement requests.
Indeed. That's a good thing, and it's what we want.
Thanks, that puts a better perspective on it than the OP. And I get where you're coming from - I've worked for some pretty clueless managers myself. I've never been in software company, though, always internal development.
I'm actually pretty satisfied where I am even though there are plenty of political landmines to navigate. I've got plenty of autonomy, I have the best developers in the shop on my team, and I even get to do some the coding myself sometimes.
I know you are speaking out of ignorance (and/or some really bad experiences with "managers"), and I wish I had time to provide more insight for you. Instead, I'll tell you why you're so wrong. Many managers (like me) are promoted from the ranks. I never really wanted to manage people - I did it before and didn't like it - but was thrown into the position anyway. I spent many years coding and implemented many successful projects. I still do that, and even dig down into code now and the, but my team does most of that. They are good at it, but they need me managing the project, running interference with upper management and business folks, designing the architectures, and many many other things that need to be done. They can't do these larger projects without me.
Frankly, I wonder if you have ever done any real software engineering - you don't seem to have much understanding of how large projects are done.
As opposed to "scientists" like the ones in this article? The flaws of this supposed study are layered so deeply they form a nice, comfy mat you could sit upon and contemplate the existence of anything coming from it, conclusions upon conclusions that have no basis other than the fact that they reinforce each other in some way based upon chosen parameters. Real science requires allowing for many possibilities, not going with some random wacky-ass idea for correlation and running with it to the logical ends of the Earth.
Wow I knew vegans are really preachy.
I never knew they were this myopic, too.
The "state's rights" argument is nothing more than "state's right to discriminate". You never hear "state's rights" being bandied about for good things,
Yea, you're completely full of shit, and even Senator Dianne Feinstein agrees that states' rights are important.
The numbers don't really matter. The fact is that the US military (and CIA, etc.) has become much more efficient at killing and controlling foreign countries. We took out the leader of Libya and didn't send in any military troops (just a bunch of "advisers"). Egypt was even easier.
That doesn't make the violent interventionism reduced - in fact if anything it has expanded. It's just done more cheaply.
And all this is just following the original plan (it's just behind schedule).
Our culture is so old phobic that people just want to bury their heads in the sand.
Yea, you're right, parts of the US culture is like that, certainly much of the media.
And that's why we have old guys hitting on twenty something year old women
Uh, no, dude, that's NOT why.
We're talking about Greenpeace here. They may have had some laudable goals when they first started, but they are now nothing but an arm of the radical Agenda 21 political groups, working to destroy all property rights, liberties, and establish a totalitarian form of global government. I fail to find anything in their agenda that could benefit society positively.
Soylent Green?
"Arab Spring".
The truth? Probably somewhere in the middle.
I used to think that too, about a lot of media stories. But I've come to discover that typically they are both lying about a completely irrelevant issue to distract you from the real truth, which is not in the middle, but somewhere way out in left field from the view of the two "sides".
Greenpeace ... lying? No! It can't be! I'm shocked, I tell you - shocked!
Better get that dosage cranked up a notch.
Yea, yea, I know, just shut up, slave and take your medicine.
... and mucking up their sense of direction.
When using these type of technically specific science terms, you should really specify the degree of mucking and define the term for the laymen.
I'd say the Divider In Chief has a much more expansive and effective propaganda machine than Murdoch's media outlets could ever hope to have. You're helping spread it yourself - the very same meme that the Obama dictatorship is necessary for the security of the state, and perhaps as important, that dissident voices must be silenced.
What does this mean? That once an organized effort is providing all the starving people with food, private individuals no longer throw money at a lucky few?
That "organized" (read: more expensive) effort ends up entirely dismantling the ability of other organizations to feed, clothe, and house the needy. Instead of many different charities focused on various social issues, you have a single entity allocating money based on political expediency. Then a revenue crisis occurs, budget cuts put some portion of the population on the street and starving, and there is no longer an alternative.
It sounds like complaining that the professional firemen push out citizen fire brigades.
Single point of failure. Not good.
That's the whole point of it.
Eliminating social responsibility from the citizens and replacing it with government dependence? Yes, I'm sure that is the point of it. I'm saying that's bad, though.
Greece can go bankrupt because it is in the Eurozone and not in direct control of its own money supply. The U.S. can avoid bankruptcy by simply printing more dollars. That has ill effects, but it is not going bankrupt.
California could go bankrupt, but the FBI never will.
This is the delusion. The reality is that the U.S. is just as dependent on the Federal Reserve as Greece is on the EUC. Debt cannot create prosperity, and the Federal Reserve is already buying 61% of the US debt. Continuing in this same direction they will eventually be the ONLY ones buying it, and then the "dollar" will be good for nothing but wiping your ass.
corporate funded propaganda like fox news, the real threat to your freedom, not your government, which you VOTE for
LOL! You've really gone off the deep end, my friend, when you view a cable channel as a greater threat to your freedom that a government that has already declare they can detain you indefinitely without recourse, and can kill you without a trial.
I'm off to drop my 1040 in the mail right now, not because the TV told me to, but because the IRS can freeze my bank accounts and seize my home. Should I instead be worried about MSNBC conducting a paramilitary raid on my home?
I don't know much about the US welfare system, so it might well be a complete disaster, but in general the state welfare model can be made blind to all this bias, and in most of the developed world, that's exactly the point of it.
It's also completely lacking in compassion, pushes out private charity, and is subject to allocation by politics. I can't see how that's better, especially when you consider the administrative overhead involved in collecting and distributing, which is always higher in large bureaucracies.
Please explain what liberty is left if there is no right to property (money, resources, whatever you want to call it).
Where do I sign up. I've had 2 stolen.
And so they opted for a "tyranny of the minority" instead, which is also what they got.
Yea, sure, the United States has been a tyranny for 230 years. Another indoctrinated puppet without critical thinking skills. What a surprise. I see the traitors are getting their money's worth out of that $80 billion a year creating a compliant population.
Maybe, just maybe, the problem is a major departure from the principles of the Constitution, rather than your regurgitated criticism of it as the cause of all ills.
Check your premises. The Constitution is not a collectivist document. The framers were quite disparaging of Democracy, which they called the "tyranny of the majority". Therefore the Constitution was written to protect individual rights, not collectivist rights. That's why it's called a Republic, with power residing at the lowest level, and flowing up as required by agreement. So it is not sufficient for most people to give up their rights, as you describe, but requires that every last person give up their rights.
You just went on to, what, suggest that public works projects might leave your descendants slaves to a totalitarian regime?
Well it's looking at a bigger picture, really. This type of research funding is generally a good thing, and will benefit everyone in the long run. But debt is a bad thing, and will harm everyone in the long run. When the debt is $16 trillion and growing, and unfunded obligations are $118 trillion and growing, and the largest external creditor is a totalitarian regime (China), you really need to set some priorities first.
You chose an inflammatory topic, and it was a stupid choice.
That's quite obvious at this point, you are correct. Yet these emotional issues are being used to drum up support and divert attention from the substantive issues, so they are difficult to avoid.