Having done both, there's a lot of difference between gcode programming and C++ programming. gcode is normally used to write very specialized programs which directly control physical actions. Many gcode programs are just cryptic-looking transcriptions of manual operation, and the difference between the machinists you mention is basically if they're literate in gcode. C++ is used for much more general programs and has a lot of facilities to handle abstraction.
Anyone who wants to become a good programmer needs to learn several languages, sure, but we're largely talking about people who aren't going to become good programmers. We're trying to teach them the basics so they have some clue how programming computers works, which is a much more widely useful skill than programming itself.
Particularly with the simpler cars when I was younger, knowing something about how they worked was very useful, even if you couldn't get a job as a mechanic.
As far as I know, no current military uses unguided cruise missiles. They're either externally or internally guided. There are unguided rockets that follow ballistic trajectories, which are not used when pinpoint accuracy is necessary.
There have been long-range unguided cruise missiles. I saw some displays when I was at the Kennedy Space Center. I wouldn't trust the guides on anything technical, but ours said that, if those things were fired, it was questionable which hemisphere they'd hit.
Take a look at Edward Bellamy's book "Looking Backward". It inspired a minor political movement called "Nationalism" in which the government would take over the means of production, ushering in a new era of peace and plenty. It looked to me about as plausible as the standard Utopian fiction that doesn't just assume much better technology than exists at the time of writing.
Also note the Japanese "Showa Restoration" movement, modeled after the "Meiji Restoration" which restored power to the Emperor; this would "restore" ownership of pretty much everything to the Emperor. This was primarily composed of strong anti-Communists.
If you work it right, you can get a fair number of right-wing people who hate socialism buy into socialism under another name.
Computer geeks, in my observation, tend to be less interested in appearance and style, and "ease of use" for a computer is typically different between computer geeks and the general public. They tend to be less interested in what iOS devices are trying to provide, and more interested in what iOS designers think relatively unimportant. I'm seriously generalizing here, of course, but that's what it looks like to me.
The poor often need all the help they can get, and that attitude strikes me as seriously non-Christian (disclaimer: not being one myself, I can't speak with authority on it).
Lawyers deliver services that can be extremely important. If you're looking for people who make a lot of money and contribute nothing, I'd suggest looking in finance.
Insurance companies sell security, which they do provide. No accident I get into in my car will cost me more than about $1K, which I can easily afford. Without insurance, an accident could cost tens of thousands of dollars easily, and make a serious impact on my retirement savings.
The NSA and FBI provide actual services; the fact that they often use means I find immoral and illegal doesn't affect that.
The money I contribute to charitable non-profit organizations (none of which, in my case, are churches except when I'm contributing to someone's favorite charity and it's a church) is subject to the usual FICA payroll taxes. It isn't subject to income taxes in my case, since my tax situation has been such that I file itemized deductions for a long time. It isn't subject to any other taxes until the charitable organization wants to spend it.
Meaning you'd like atheists more if they agreed with you politically. There are good and patriotic people of all political leanings. I remember realizing that a certain Communist also wanted what was best for the country. We differed a lot on what we considered best, and much more on how to get there, but fundamentally he was as patriotic as pretty much anyone else I know.
That's exactly the same for other non-profit organizations. Churches do have a benefit in that they're automatically considered charitable non-profit organizations until proven otherwise.
Why should Hobby Lobby be forced to pay for something which goes against its beliefs?
Because it is a business and has employees. That means it's no longer a completely private organization, and must operate according to certain laws. Religion should not be an excuse to break the law.
If it makes you feel any better, a lot of my tax money has been spent on things I find morally abhorrent. Religions are not selected for bad treatment here.
I don't contribute to the Salvation Army, because of their attitude on same-sex couples. I contribute to charities that conform more to my beliefs. My only care about religious schools is whether or not they're getting public benefits, and if so for what. I have no desire to have my tax dollars support your religious activity.
For all X, there is a Y such that, if X existed to do what is Right and Good, we never would have had Y. All human institutions do good and all do harm, and I find it easier to find institutions that do very little good and a lot of harm than vice versa.
What I find interesting about Eisenhower and the Interstates is that, before WWII, Eisenhower was given command of a truck convoy and ordered to drive from one coast to the other and report on how it worked. It did not go well.
From a theoretical point of view, I agree with you about the mortgage interest deduction. From a practical point of view, abolishing it suddenly would drop the value of real estate pretty massively, and have some really unpleasant economic effects.
It's an exaggeration, but contributions to churches are considered charitable contributions. It would be really nice to be able to separate them out, and separate out the amount of charity work the churches do. In general, conservative religious people tend to direct their donations to people who resemble them in some ways. A friend of mine who's a priest in South Dakota is having no luck trying to get the congregation interested in donating to help alleviate the often horrifying conditions on the reservations. Moreover, many churches spend lots of money not on charity. Her husband complains about a church in (I think) New York that has more money for its music budget than the Diocese of South Dakota gets. (He was surprised at how many people didn't recognize that a church budget was a theological document.)
While we can say that conservatives spend more money on what the IRS considers charitable deductions than liberals, it's a lot harder to figure out what that amounts to in real-world effect.
How are you going to figure out how big an impact a certain program has? Churches and governments tend to do somewhat different things. Churches tend to get more personal, which has its advantages (more help tends to go to the people who need it) and disadvantages (certain people tend to get left out of a lot of church charity).
If we define a god as "a supernatural entity that people appeal to", then the Catholic Church is seriously polytheistic, since that's how they regard saints. Hinduism has many gods and one Brahman, which is fairly analogous to many saints and one God.
The Bible is pretty unreliable history. There are few or no independent accounts of Jesus, and I don't think there's an independent source for the resurrection.
Not to mention that lots of Christians don't believe that the Bible is inerrant truth. One of the most religious people I know is fascinated by the provenance of parts of the Bible, and once remarked that it was about 80% sure that a certain passage was added to the chapter centuries after the chapter was written.
I know some devout people who rely on science for their facts and religion for spiritual guidance and morality.
What ticks me off about some religious people is not what they believe but what they want me to believe or do, and how they use religion to justify the worst aspects of themselves. If I'm being a jerk to certain people, I'm being a jerk, and it's my own fault. In many cases, people use religion as an excuse to not only be a jerk but pat themselves on the back in self-righteousness. (They often don't know what they're talking about, even about their nominal religion. I bet some people who claim to be in favor of Biblical marriage would be offended if I were to show up on their doorstep with a herd of livestock and offer them for their daughter to be my second wife.)
Referring to the patent suits? Those are in Federal court for violations of Federal law. The Feds have no interest in whether one private party owes another $10K.
Okay, find me a case of someone who negligently got classified material where it shouldn't be and faced felony prosecution. The cases I know of where there was criminal prosecution involve deliberate moves of classified material to unauthorized places.
Slashdot Mirror
Having done both, there's a lot of difference between gcode programming and C++ programming. gcode is normally used to write very specialized programs which directly control physical actions. Many gcode programs are just cryptic-looking transcriptions of manual operation, and the difference between the machinists you mention is basically if they're literate in gcode. C++ is used for much more general programs and has a lot of facilities to handle abstraction.
Anyone who wants to become a good programmer needs to learn several languages, sure, but we're largely talking about people who aren't going to become good programmers. We're trying to teach them the basics so they have some clue how programming computers works, which is a much more widely useful skill than programming itself.
Particularly with the simpler cars when I was younger, knowing something about how they worked was very useful, even if you couldn't get a job as a mechanic.
As far as I know, no current military uses unguided cruise missiles. They're either externally or internally guided. There are unguided rockets that follow ballistic trajectories, which are not used when pinpoint accuracy is necessary.
There have been long-range unguided cruise missiles. I saw some displays when I was at the Kennedy Space Center. I wouldn't trust the guides on anything technical, but ours said that, if those things were fired, it was questionable which hemisphere they'd hit.
Take a look at Edward Bellamy's book "Looking Backward". It inspired a minor political movement called "Nationalism" in which the government would take over the means of production, ushering in a new era of peace and plenty. It looked to me about as plausible as the standard Utopian fiction that doesn't just assume much better technology than exists at the time of writing.
Also note the Japanese "Showa Restoration" movement, modeled after the "Meiji Restoration" which restored power to the Emperor; this would "restore" ownership of pretty much everything to the Emperor. This was primarily composed of strong anti-Communists.
If you work it right, you can get a fair number of right-wing people who hate socialism buy into socialism under another name.
You're looking for Augustine's law, specifically number 16, which does admittedly only apply to warplanes.
Computer geeks, in my observation, tend to be less interested in appearance and style, and "ease of use" for a computer is typically different between computer geeks and the general public. They tend to be less interested in what iOS devices are trying to provide, and more interested in what iOS designers think relatively unimportant. I'm seriously generalizing here, of course, but that's what it looks like to me.
Sure. That counts. If Clinton had deliberately put classified material there, criminal prosecution would be appropriate.
I approve. You're doing a lot more good than some other churches I'm aware of that probably raise a lot more money.
The poor often need all the help they can get, and that attitude strikes me as seriously non-Christian (disclaimer: not being one myself, I can't speak with authority on it).
It would appear that atheists are another subject you know nothing of, along with gender dysphoria and politics and feminism.
I donate to charities on my own, but I also vote for higher taxes to provide more benefits, and try to assist the less fortunate in that way.
Lawyers deliver services that can be extremely important. If you're looking for people who make a lot of money and contribute nothing, I'd suggest looking in finance.
Insurance companies sell security, which they do provide. No accident I get into in my car will cost me more than about $1K, which I can easily afford. Without insurance, an accident could cost tens of thousands of dollars easily, and make a serious impact on my retirement savings.
The NSA and FBI provide actual services; the fact that they often use means I find immoral and illegal doesn't affect that.
The money I contribute to charitable non-profit organizations (none of which, in my case, are churches except when I'm contributing to someone's favorite charity and it's a church) is subject to the usual FICA payroll taxes. It isn't subject to income taxes in my case, since my tax situation has been such that I file itemized deductions for a long time. It isn't subject to any other taxes until the charitable organization wants to spend it.
Meaning you'd like atheists more if they agreed with you politically. There are good and patriotic people of all political leanings. I remember realizing that a certain Communist also wanted what was best for the country. We differed a lot on what we considered best, and much more on how to get there, but fundamentally he was as patriotic as pretty much anyone else I know.
That's exactly the same for other non-profit organizations. Churches do have a benefit in that they're automatically considered charitable non-profit organizations until proven otherwise.
Because it is a business and has employees. That means it's no longer a completely private organization, and must operate according to certain laws. Religion should not be an excuse to break the law.
If it makes you feel any better, a lot of my tax money has been spent on things I find morally abhorrent. Religions are not selected for bad treatment here.
I don't contribute to the Salvation Army, because of their attitude on same-sex couples. I contribute to charities that conform more to my beliefs. My only care about religious schools is whether or not they're getting public benefits, and if so for what. I have no desire to have my tax dollars support your religious activity.
For all X, there is a Y such that, if X existed to do what is Right and Good, we never would have had Y. All human institutions do good and all do harm, and I find it easier to find institutions that do very little good and a lot of harm than vice versa.
What I find interesting about Eisenhower and the Interstates is that, before WWII, Eisenhower was given command of a truck convoy and ordered to drive from one coast to the other and report on how it worked. It did not go well.
From a theoretical point of view, I agree with you about the mortgage interest deduction. From a practical point of view, abolishing it suddenly would drop the value of real estate pretty massively, and have some really unpleasant economic effects.
It's an exaggeration, but contributions to churches are considered charitable contributions. It would be really nice to be able to separate them out, and separate out the amount of charity work the churches do. In general, conservative religious people tend to direct their donations to people who resemble them in some ways. A friend of mine who's a priest in South Dakota is having no luck trying to get the congregation interested in donating to help alleviate the often horrifying conditions on the reservations. Moreover, many churches spend lots of money not on charity. Her husband complains about a church in (I think) New York that has more money for its music budget than the Diocese of South Dakota gets. (He was surprised at how many people didn't recognize that a church budget was a theological document.)
While we can say that conservatives spend more money on what the IRS considers charitable deductions than liberals, it's a lot harder to figure out what that amounts to in real-world effect.
How are you going to figure out how big an impact a certain program has? Churches and governments tend to do somewhat different things. Churches tend to get more personal, which has its advantages (more help tends to go to the people who need it) and disadvantages (certain people tend to get left out of a lot of church charity).
If we define a god as "a supernatural entity that people appeal to", then the Catholic Church is seriously polytheistic, since that's how they regard saints. Hinduism has many gods and one Brahman, which is fairly analogous to many saints and one God.
The Bible is pretty unreliable history. There are few or no independent accounts of Jesus, and I don't think there's an independent source for the resurrection.
Not to mention that lots of Christians don't believe that the Bible is inerrant truth. One of the most religious people I know is fascinated by the provenance of parts of the Bible, and once remarked that it was about 80% sure that a certain passage was added to the chapter centuries after the chapter was written.
I know some devout people who rely on science for their facts and religion for spiritual guidance and morality.
What ticks me off about some religious people is not what they believe but what they want me to believe or do, and how they use religion to justify the worst aspects of themselves. If I'm being a jerk to certain people, I'm being a jerk, and it's my own fault. In many cases, people use religion as an excuse to not only be a jerk but pat themselves on the back in self-righteousness. (They often don't know what they're talking about, even about their nominal religion. I bet some people who claim to be in favor of Biblical marriage would be offended if I were to show up on their doorstep with a herd of livestock and offer them for their daughter to be my second wife.)
Referring to the patent suits? Those are in Federal court for violations of Federal law. The Feds have no interest in whether one private party owes another $10K.
Okay, find me a case of someone who negligently got classified material where it shouldn't be and faced felony prosecution. The cases I know of where there was criminal prosecution involve deliberate moves of classified material to unauthorized places.