so that maybe young people can learn how to use software they'll encounter later in their professional lives..you know, kinda like what you did in the 80s as a kid (based on your low UID).
..and my anecdotal observations over the years shows the extraverts too busy playing politics and other social games to produce quality work, even under the rare occasion when they are in fact good programmers. their social insecurities get in the way of the job. it was usually the lone wolf(ves) who don't care what happened in the football game last night, and don't care about irrelevancies like dress shirts and ties, now putting in extra hours, that saved the day. in today's age of bloated, buggy, half-assed, software, I can't help but think that this is, in part, due to management incorrectly prioritizing the attributes of programmer hires. they now select sociability with extreme bias, while actual programming skills are near the bottom of the list, then have to resort to gimmicks like 'agile programming' and hire additional employees of similar ilk to compensate.
errr...um... from what I understand, all of the low level protocol stack is in the kernel. the userland utils (iputils) and network applications make calls to the kernel. I don't even think libc gets involved here. if you want an ipv6 only system, just set the v4 ip to 0.0.0.0. it's not difficult.
or, today's conservative design is yesterday's+cruft added by redundant bloat in managed runtimes that're already available from the host OS. this happens when programmers graduate and take their professors' ivory tower vacuum 'everything should be portable/who cares about performance/efficiency computers are so fast anyway' mentality with them to their employers.
the problem is that 'inhumane-ity' is a subjective issue derived from emotionally driven belief. having a government decide by committee instead of individuals between themselves just makes the belief-fallacy into another type: argument from popularity. Systems like this persist because people like you just like the warm fuzzies that come with cheering on a tyrant that, to some, inhumanely attacks others its policies claim are acting inhumanely... justice systems around the world rotate around this socio-politically driven, hypocritical axis. the more polarized the politics (even multipolar non-US politics apply), the more quickly it spins, bypassing more and more moderative policy (punishment that fits the crime/is punishment for said action in the long term best interests of the society/does this action even victimize at all? etc).
who decides what belongs on the shame list? authority uses this game all the time to badger people it considers a threat to its power. if everyone got a chance at that list, we'd have no rights at all.
thanks for the explanation. however, would not the rest of my point stand if 'printing money' was swapped out with 'borrows more money from the federal reserve'?
I'm talking about all tax, not just the base federal income tax. Additional tax IS a punishment to both these people AND the rest of us because the price is already too high as it is, most of it due to speculative markups. this just means more working class people have to resort to federal and state handouts to keep afloat.
while a well maintained 88 civic dx will get decent efficiency, most older vehicles tend not to because they aren't maintained. if it starts and gets him to and from work, that's all that matters to someone who barely makes ends meet. remember, these people don't have the money to maintain the junkers they have now, so buying new cars is out of the question. financially penalizing them for driving old ones is senseless and cruel.
The reason people hate taxes is because they are commonly used as punitive measures to modify behavior. This is NOT what they should be used for. Thanks to federal and state government not having the discipline to operate within a budget, we pay too much as it is, and coupled with the rise in inflation every time washington prints more money, the people at the bottom are the ones who get burned at both ends, in savings and expenditures. Raising fuel taxes hurts these people even more because they are not able to afford a new car every few years and thus are most likely the ones driving 10+ year old models, nor can they afford to pay even more at the pump than they already are. If money needs diversion to research new technologies then it should come out of the pockets of the oil companies, not consumers. They shoulder enough of the yoke as it is while large corporations are the ones who benefit the most from government economic management.
the statement is based on behavioral trends. when the going gets tough, most women will defer to, instinctively, and/or manipulate an available man into doing the task. viewing examples of this ubiquity is easy. if you want the cultural reflection of current norms and trends, turn on the tv, and if you want realtime sampling, go to a public place where people interact and pay attention. there is a nasty double standard brewing in the culture that is detrimental to men and boys and it is quite obvious, even in irrelevancies like television commercials. it is a biological fact that women are not as strong as men physically, while mentally, the genders differ in temperament and focus. men tend to be world focused, while women tend to be people focused. these are biases, not absolutes, but they should be encouraged, not censured for the sake of some politically charged ideology.
anyway, based on what I've seen and read, women have shown better small motor dexterity than most men, though there are exceptions. in terms of overall capabilities, the male performance curve slopes much more than the female.. ie the majority of geniuses are men as are the majority of retarded people. fewer women suffer neurological and physical disability than men. it looks like men are nature's 'gamble.' they serve the species by being the differentiators who advertise latent talent, while the women choose which qualities they like when they make their sexual selections. except in the most cerebral of people, most of this is done nonverbally and subconciously by both genders regardless of what political think-tank 'theories' state.
also my comment didn't just imply physical labor.. by 'dirty work' I meant any time a serious effort was needed that does not (usually) get the spotlight when it comes time for the reward.
I didn't mean to imply life was a wonderful paradise for them or that they didn't sacrifice, just that men have done a large part of the interface work with reality required to maintain a civilization...most of (but not all) the big picture stuff. yes women bore and raised the offspring (which is critical obviously), prepared food, and handled part of the home maintenance, but right along side that were the men defending their existence, building the homes, hunting/working for the food that was prepared, solving life's bigger calamities when they occurred, advancing the quality of life with creative invention/science, and were the first ones to sacrifice their lives for their families. This, to a lesser degree, is still true today, except that men are no longer respected for it, and while feminine attributes/role takeovers are celebrated to the point of absurdity, masculine ones are increasingly censured, often starting in kindergarten.
Through my life, in situations where I hear women talking, especially when they don't realize I'm listening, their use of the language makes their self centered attitudes towards men come out loud and clear. the things they say make me conclude that they're just unaware of the work that goes into maintaining a society such as ours. they seem to think nothing else is relevant to this goal other than their own (usually immediate) needs and that men who aren't feminist doormats obstruct their satiation and advancement. I would expect this from people who've grown used to a chattel role or have just experienced no other, which is why I thought it might be due to natural instinct run rampant by modern feminism. women just aren't taught to respect the value men bring to the table anymore. men of course are being taught to be the aforementioned doormats.
In terms of this topic, I think artificial sperm culturing would give this already overdominant anti-male trend even more steam. Women have been taught to think they could be 100% self reliant if only men would 'let them'. From what I've seen, it's a lot more complicated than that, but, men, instinctively being the providers, gave them the next best thing: a doublethink fantasy.
you laugh but the current political climate might actually go for it at some point. here in the USA the federal government is little more than a conglomerate of powerful economic and social lobbies, among them womens' groups and business owners who want docile, obedient self regulated conformists as employees, men and women both.
yeah except when it's time to do the dirty work/heavy lifting.. then it's ''omg I need a man'. of course, when it's NOT time to do the dirty work, we're all 'equals'.
adapting the machine to convenience should not be the same as adapting it to stupidity. a race to the bottom doesn't help anyone. backup is a remedial skill that we should all be doing.
the problem is that some of these positions really benefit from a unilateral position. when everything is designed by committee at all levels of government, you end up with even more compromise than you had before, which is not always a good thing.
we already have 'approval voting' for president except it's the approval board that actually elects him. the popular vote does nothing but tell the electoral college what the people want. it's a bit archaic and easily gamed by those with money.
Slashdot Mirror
so that maybe young people can learn how to use software they'll encounter later in their professional lives..you know, kinda like what you did in the 80s as a kid (based on your low UID).
..and my anecdotal observations over the years shows the extraverts too busy playing politics and other social games to produce quality work, even under the rare occasion when they are in fact good programmers. their social insecurities get in the way of the job. it was usually the lone wolf(ves) who don't care what happened in the football game last night, and don't care about irrelevancies like dress shirts and ties, now putting in extra hours, that saved the day. in today's age of bloated, buggy, half-assed, software, I can't help but think that this is, in part, due to management incorrectly prioritizing the attributes of programmer hires. they now select sociability with extreme bias, while actual programming skills are near the bottom of the list, then have to resort to gimmicks like 'agile programming' and hire additional employees of similar ilk to compensate.
errr...um... from what I understand, all of the low level protocol stack is in the kernel. the userland utils (iputils) and network applications make calls to the kernel. I don't even think libc gets involved here. if you want an ipv6 only system, just set the v4 ip to 0.0.0.0. it's not difficult.
or, today's conservative design is yesterday's+cruft added by redundant bloat in managed runtimes that're already available from the host OS. this happens when programmers graduate and take their professors' ivory tower vacuum 'everything should be portable/who cares about performance/efficiency computers are so fast anyway' mentality with them to their employers.
ok.. turn off superfetch and disable prefetch.. win7 x86_64 still eats 400-500MB. it's still bloated.
the problem is that 'inhumane-ity' is a subjective issue derived from emotionally driven belief. having a government decide by committee instead of individuals between themselves just makes the belief-fallacy into another type: argument from popularity. Systems like this persist because people like you just like the warm fuzzies that come with cheering on a tyrant that, to some, inhumanely attacks others its policies claim are acting inhumanely... justice systems around the world rotate around this socio-politically driven, hypocritical axis. the more polarized the politics (even multipolar non-US politics apply), the more quickly it spins, bypassing more and more moderative policy (punishment that fits the crime/is punishment for said action in the long term best interests of the society/does this action even victimize at all? etc).
yes about as well as the political duopoly has for the US. can't wait!
who decides what belongs on the shame list? authority uses this game all the time to badger people it considers a threat to its power. if everyone got a chance at that list, we'd have no rights at all.
and of course 'professionals' like yourself would never stoop to such unprofessional fallacies like ad hominems...
how is it crappier than NT or osx?
sure.. if you like a slideshow.
thanks for the explanation. however, would not the rest of my point stand if 'printing money' was swapped out with 'borrows more money from the federal reserve'?
I should've said 'loans.'
no, actually I didn't. I may have been wrong, however.
I'm talking about all tax, not just the base federal income tax. Additional tax IS a punishment to both these people AND the rest of us because the price is already too high as it is, most of it due to speculative markups. this just means more working class people have to resort to federal and state handouts to keep afloat.
while a well maintained 88 civic dx will get decent efficiency, most older vehicles tend not to because they aren't maintained. if it starts and gets him to and from work, that's all that matters to someone who barely makes ends meet. remember, these people don't have the money to maintain the junkers they have now, so buying new cars is out of the question. financially penalizing them for driving old ones is senseless and cruel.
The reason people hate taxes is because they are commonly used as punitive measures to modify behavior. This is NOT what they should be used for. Thanks to federal and state government not having the discipline to operate within a budget, we pay too much as it is, and coupled with the rise in inflation every time washington prints more money, the people at the bottom are the ones who get burned at both ends, in savings and expenditures. Raising fuel taxes hurts these people even more because they are not able to afford a new car every few years and thus are most likely the ones driving 10+ year old models, nor can they afford to pay even more at the pump than they already are. If money needs diversion to research new technologies then it should come out of the pockets of the oil companies, not consumers. They shoulder enough of the yoke as it is while large corporations are the ones who benefit the most from government economic management.
the statement is based on behavioral trends. when the going gets tough, most women will defer to, instinctively, and/or manipulate an available man into doing the task. viewing examples of this ubiquity is easy. if you want the cultural reflection of current norms and trends, turn on the tv, and if you want realtime sampling, go to a public place where people interact and pay attention. there is a nasty double standard brewing in the culture that is detrimental to men and boys and it is quite obvious, even in irrelevancies like television commercials. it is a biological fact that women are not as strong as men physically, while mentally, the genders differ in temperament and focus. men tend to be world focused, while women tend to be people focused. these are biases, not absolutes, but they should be encouraged, not censured for the sake of some politically charged ideology.
anyway, based on what I've seen and read, women have shown better small motor dexterity than most men, though there are exceptions. in terms of overall capabilities, the male performance curve slopes much more than the female.. ie the majority of geniuses are men as are the majority of retarded people. fewer women suffer neurological and physical disability than men. it looks like men are nature's 'gamble.' they serve the species by being the differentiators who advertise latent talent, while the women choose which qualities they like when they make their sexual selections. except in the most cerebral of people, most of this is done nonverbally and subconciously by both genders regardless of what political think-tank 'theories' state.
also my comment didn't just imply physical labor.. by 'dirty work' I meant any time a serious effort was needed that does not (usually) get the spotlight when it comes time for the reward.
I didn't mean to imply life was a wonderful paradise for them or that they didn't sacrifice, just that men have done a large part of the interface work with reality required to maintain a civilization...most of (but not all) the big picture stuff. yes women bore and raised the offspring (which is critical obviously), prepared food, and handled part of the home maintenance, but right along side that were the men defending their existence, building the homes, hunting/working for the food that was prepared, solving life's bigger calamities when they occurred, advancing the quality of life with creative invention/science, and were the first ones to sacrifice their lives for their families. This, to a lesser degree, is still true today, except that men are no longer respected for it, and while feminine attributes/role takeovers are celebrated to the point of absurdity, masculine ones are increasingly censured, often starting in kindergarten.
Through my life, in situations where I hear women talking, especially when they don't realize I'm listening, their use of the language makes their self centered attitudes towards men come out loud and clear. the things they say make me conclude that they're just unaware of the work that goes into maintaining a society such as ours. they seem to think nothing else is relevant to this goal other than their own (usually immediate) needs and that men who aren't feminist doormats obstruct their satiation and advancement. I would expect this from people who've grown used to a chattel role or have just experienced no other, which is why I thought it might be due to natural instinct run rampant by modern feminism. women just aren't taught to respect the value men bring to the table anymore. men of course are being taught to be the aforementioned doormats.
In terms of this topic, I think artificial sperm culturing would give this already overdominant anti-male trend even more steam. Women have been taught to think they could be 100% self reliant if only men would 'let them'. From what I've seen, it's a lot more complicated than that, but, men, instinctively being the providers, gave them the next best thing: a doublethink fantasy.
I'm the idiot when you are the one responding with ad hominem?
you laugh but the current political climate might actually go for it at some point. here in the USA the federal government is little more than a conglomerate of powerful economic and social lobbies, among them womens' groups and business owners who want docile, obedient self regulated conformists as employees, men and women both.
get some self respect.. you've got a serious case of stockholm syndrome.
that's because women don't instinctively realize just how harsh life can be.
yeah except when it's time to do the dirty work/heavy lifting.. then it's ''omg I need a man'. of course, when it's NOT time to do the dirty work, we're all 'equals'.
adapting the machine to convenience should not be the same as adapting it to stupidity. a race to the bottom doesn't help anyone. backup is a remedial skill that we should all be doing.
the problem is that some of these positions really benefit from a unilateral position. when everything is designed by committee at all levels of government, you end up with even more compromise than you had before, which is not always a good thing.
we already have 'approval voting' for president except it's the approval board that actually elects him. the popular vote does nothing but tell the electoral college what the people want. it's a bit archaic and easily gamed by those with money.