So what you're saying is that external education counts more than family values? Hard to separate this out- since better education WAS one of the upper class's family values in that period, and the poor had no access to education, so was it the family values, or the education encouraged by those family values? I think you've identified a chicken-and-egg problem.
A worse counter-example; 200 years after the Industrial Revolution, the rich are dying out. Their long hours managing their money means they have significantly less time for family- there isn't a first world country today that is above ZPG demographically when you eliminate immigration.
Or more importantly, why Africa is stuck where it is economically. Just giving them factories and modern farming isn't enough- you also need to reduce their populations significantly.
Hate to say it, but maybe the Janjaweed have a point in Darfur....
"Thrift, prudence, negotiation and hard work were becoming values for communities that previously had been spendthrift, impulsive, violent and leisure loving," Dr. Clark writes.
And so what happens when the reverse hits a culture, and easy credit replaces thrift, prudence, negotiation, and hard work?
Hillary's Socialized Health Care. I find that among many libertarians, their fear of large government is only overshadowed by their fear of government controlled industries.
The dollars were real. The spending was fake. He spent just enough to appear to have this whole new scary missile defense system that would give the US a definitive first-strike capability. Never mind that the technology didn't exist yet, and likely most of those dollars were redirected elsewhere...but it won the cold war.
Let's just say that the present crop of neocons has me WISHING for the old Reaganesque conservatives. They may have cost just as much, but at least they knew how to WIN a war.
Are we thinking about the same history? Is this the same Reagan that increased government spending to levels that were unmatched for twenty years? The same guy who (nearly) single handedly added trillions of dollars to the national debt? Or are we talking about the Reagan that set the bar for government corruption with Iran/Contra?
Or at least appeared to- he was one heck of an actor. Iran/Contra was about fighting communism, in the end result. And the SDI "increase in military spending"? a fake-out, an act. They had to borrow the money, they had to appear to spend it, even though the technology to actually accomplish it would have to wait another 20 years (last year we saw our first true ABM system pass it's final tests).
Well, strictly speaking, I'm actually anti-Marxist as well- I no longer believe in economic systems that encourage anonymity, and thus applying communism to anything larger than the small village is something I'm against.
Of course, that should lead you to know what I think of the stock market as well- which effectively hides ownership information from the end consumer....
I liked Reagan. I think he really did end the cold war and naysayers who say it was ending anyway are wrong.
As an American Marxist, I saw the end of the cold war starting in the 1950s- with the mismanagement of Stalin that the USSR's economy never actually recovered from (it just kept getting worse from then on out). Reagan was only president of the Screen Actor's Guild back then. But he was right to force the issue with his fake SDI program.
However, he presided over a huge growth of government.
Only if he fooled you like he fooled Gorbachev.....
You can argue that he had to give butter to the democrats in exchange for his guns- but he did not run on a platform of guns AND butter (and anything else you want as long as you vote for funding against the soviets).
The real trick is that there were no guns. SDI was all a fake-out, it wasn't until 1992 that the technology *began* to be available, and it wasn't effective (that is, shooting down a real ICBM with a single missile, as opposed to the scattershot system used by the Patriot batteries) until 2006. But that didn't keep Gorbachev from destroying his economy in an attempt to keep up, which forced the end of the Soviet Union.
We libertarians believe in things like civil rights and limitations on federal government power. If republicans have ever supported these concepts, it hasn't been during my politically aware lifetime (last 15 years or so.)
Youngster. You don't remember Ronald Reagan, who basically ran on civil rights and limitations on federal government power, and who actually popularized "The scariest words in the English Language: I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
Republicans have certainly become corrupted since then (The current administration very much so), but they're still more likely to limit government interference in the free market than Democrats are.
Dude, I know it's a popular misconception, especially among the R's, but Libertarians are NOTHING LIKE republicans, and it's just as easy for us to see their behavior is deceitful, wasteful, totalitarian, and just plain disgusting.
Don't mistake the current crop of oil-industry idiots for the majority of Republicans.
I don't know what the hell Ron Paul thinks he's doing acting like part of that group of idiots. And don't tell me that they are both supposed to be "conservative". The pointless and unnecessary wars they tend to start and glamorize are the most expensive, wasteful, and downright suicidal (on a national level) government programs I've ever seen.
Ron Paul and Ronnie Reagan have a lot in common- and while I have a tendency to agree with you on "pointless and unnecessary wars", back in the 1980s they knew how to fight them cheaply with a very minimum of waste. The invasion of Panama was the worst, and even that was over in a couple of weeks. Most followed the War Powers Act that gives the sitting President 48 hours before he has to report to Congress to ask for permission for a war. A good Republican IS a Libertarian.
Yes, but from that point of view, it's a far sight better than a spoiler vote for a Democrat, which the Libertarian vote might become (has become in the past) without vote trading software.
The same software could also solve the Libertarian/Republican crisis as well as the Green/Democrat crisis, so I see no point in arguing that it's one sided.
I haven't RTFA'd yet- but IIRC, the "Asmovian" version of this required that for maximum survival, you had to hyperventalate (to maximize oxygen storage in the bloodstream), empty the lungs, and be in shadow since the sun puts out so much energy that without an atmosphere you risk a pretty bad sunburn.
I want it written by ONE specialist and 5 generalists- the specialist to give the industry-specific inputs and outputs, the generalists to make sure that when you get a given input, the system will reliably give the expected output with 100% uptime.
You need both, but you need fewer specialists than you do generalists. Oh, and the Fred Brooks Method says You Shalt Not Have A Software Development Team Greater Than Six.
All Schiavo had left were lower brain structures that regulate autonomous functions. The autopsy showed that her cortex was gone.
The MRI shows that This Guy's cortex is also gone. He's even missing those lower brain structures that regulate autonomous functions. Instead, he's got a thin layer of brain tissue on the OUTSIDE of his brain that does it all- and allows him to be a father and a bureaucrat. Of course- it took him 45 years to get there.....
On the other hand, if the best thing I can look forward too after years of stimulation and therapy is the intellect of end stage Alzheimer's patient then forget it.
Where I find value even in such a life- I spent a year audiotaping my grandmother as she descended through the last stages of Alzheimer's. It's my fear that you have been influenced by bigots- bigots who are no different than the Eugenicists and anti-disability movements of the past.
I understand the fear- the fear of costing your family "more than you are worth", the fear of dependence on other human beings. But those are false fears- and even somebody with the intellect of a bureaucrat can provide service to humanity.
Now granted- it took the Frenchman 45 years to get there....
Maybe not "the right way." That's a conceit common to our profession: that our way is "right." But at least a GOOD way to code it.
In the case of dealing with any customer "the right way" is the way that can be commented for future maintenance & works without bugs. If your code can do that, then it is most certainly "the right way"- the right way for the conditions of the job.
Seriously, we knew ALL of this a long time ago. HR just has yet to catch up- they'd rather hire 100 slightly-less-than-competent people who have the right keywords on their resume than a single lazy generalist who will figure out the right way to code it the first time regardless of how new they are to the language. And it's the second one you want. The real bottleneck isn't finding expert programmers- it's finding HR people who understand this industry.
There are bound to be cases where we can argue till the cows come home how much of the mind is left. Hers wasn't one of them. Where the forebrain should have been, there was cerebrospinal fluid. There was nothing left. Her case does not compare with the case in TFA.
Correct, her case more closely mirrors This article from last week where a man with a 75 IQ was discovered whose ENTIRE brain was cerebrospinal fluid- except for a thin skin on the surface. Of course, he was given 45 years to recover from his initial injury (in childhood, he was a victim of hydrocephalus, and a malfunctioning shunt was likely the cause of his injury), and Terry was given what, 15 years?
Assuming the damage could have been repaired, what of the data lost? It's not like we had a backup copy of her mind, her memories, or the other aspects of her identity.
This however, is true. But who are you to say that her new mind, her new memories, her new identity, could not have accomplished something new? Have you left proof behind and become a soothsayer?
Slashdot Mirror
So what you're saying is that external education counts more than family values? Hard to separate this out- since better education WAS one of the upper class's family values in that period, and the poor had no access to education, so was it the family values, or the education encouraged by those family values? I think you've identified a chicken-and-egg problem.
A worse counter-example; 200 years after the Industrial Revolution, the rich are dying out. Their long hours managing their money means they have significantly less time for family- there isn't a first world country today that is above ZPG demographically when you eliminate immigration.
Or more importantly, why Africa is stuck where it is economically. Just giving them factories and modern farming isn't enough- you also need to reduce their populations significantly.
Hate to say it, but maybe the Janjaweed have a point in Darfur....
"Thrift, prudence, negotiation and hard work were becoming values for communities that previously had been spendthrift, impulsive, violent and leisure loving," Dr. Clark writes.
And so what happens when the reverse hits a culture, and easy credit replaces thrift, prudence, negotiation, and hard work?
Hillary's Socialized Health Care. I find that among many libertarians, their fear of large government is only overshadowed by their fear of government controlled industries.
The dollars were real. The spending was fake. He spent just enough to appear to have this whole new scary missile defense system that would give the US a definitive first-strike capability. Never mind that the technology didn't exist yet, and likely most of those dollars were redirected elsewhere...but it won the cold war.
Ah, but who gets into the primaries? The people the corporations want to win....
Let's just say that the present crop of neocons has me WISHING for the old Reaganesque conservatives. They may have cost just as much, but at least they knew how to WIN a war.
It required a majority of Republicans to support these guys, and they did it several times in a row.
The lesser of two evils choice does not necessarily indicate support.
Are we thinking about the same history? Is this the same Reagan that increased government spending to levels that were unmatched for twenty years? The same guy who (nearly) single handedly added trillions of dollars to the national debt? Or are we talking about the Reagan that set the bar for government corruption with Iran/Contra?
Or at least appeared to- he was one heck of an actor. Iran/Contra was about fighting communism, in the end result. And the SDI "increase in military spending"? a fake-out, an act. They had to borrow the money, they had to appear to spend it, even though the technology to actually accomplish it would have to wait another 20 years (last year we saw our first true ABM system pass it's final tests).
Well, strictly speaking, I'm actually anti-Marxist as well- I no longer believe in economic systems that encourage anonymity, and thus applying communism to anything larger than the small village is something I'm against.
Of course, that should lead you to know what I think of the stock market as well- which effectively hides ownership information from the end consumer....
I liked Reagan. I think he really did end the cold war and naysayers who say it was ending anyway are wrong.
As an American Marxist, I saw the end of the cold war starting in the 1950s- with the mismanagement of Stalin that the USSR's economy never actually recovered from (it just kept getting worse from then on out). Reagan was only president of the Screen Actor's Guild back then. But he was right to force the issue with his fake SDI program.
However, he presided over a huge growth of government.
Only if he fooled you like he fooled Gorbachev.....
You can argue that he had to give butter to the democrats in exchange for his guns- but he did not run on a platform of guns AND butter (and anything else you want as long as you vote for funding against the soviets).
The real trick is that there were no guns. SDI was all a fake-out, it wasn't until 1992 that the technology *began* to be available, and it wasn't effective (that is, shooting down a real ICBM with a single missile, as opposed to the scattershot system used by the Patriot batteries) until 2006. But that didn't keep Gorbachev from destroying his economy in an attempt to keep up, which forced the end of the Soviet Union.
We libertarians believe in things like civil rights and limitations on federal government power. If republicans have ever supported these concepts, it hasn't been during my politically aware lifetime (last 15 years or so.)
Youngster. You don't remember Ronald Reagan, who basically ran on civil rights and limitations on federal government power, and who actually popularized "The scariest words in the English Language: I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
Republicans have certainly become corrupted since then (The current administration very much so), but they're still more likely to limit government interference in the free market than Democrats are.
Dude, I know it's a popular misconception, especially among the R's, but Libertarians are NOTHING LIKE republicans, and it's just as easy for us to see their behavior is deceitful, wasteful, totalitarian, and just plain disgusting.
Don't mistake the current crop of oil-industry idiots for the majority of Republicans.
I don't know what the hell Ron Paul thinks he's doing acting like part of that group of idiots. And don't tell me that they are both supposed to be "conservative". The pointless and unnecessary wars they tend to start and glamorize are the most expensive, wasteful, and downright suicidal (on a national level) government programs I've ever seen.
Ron Paul and Ronnie Reagan have a lot in common- and while I have a tendency to agree with you on "pointless and unnecessary wars", back in the 1980s they knew how to fight them cheaply with a very minimum of waste. The invasion of Panama was the worst, and even that was over in a couple of weeks. Most followed the War Powers Act that gives the sitting President 48 hours before he has to report to Congress to ask for permission for a war. A good Republican IS a Libertarian.
Yes, but from that point of view, it's a far sight better than a spoiler vote for a Democrat, which the Libertarian vote might become (has become in the past) without vote trading software.
Vote Libertarian--crisis solved :-)
Incorrect, as this may well throw the election to the Democrats.
The same software could also solve the Libertarian/Republican crisis as well as the Green/Democrat crisis, so I see no point in arguing that it's one sided.
I haven't RTFA'd yet- but IIRC, the "Asmovian" version of this required that for maximum survival, you had to hyperventalate (to maximize oxygen storage in the bloodstream), empty the lungs, and be in shadow since the sun puts out so much energy that without an atmosphere you risk a pretty bad sunburn.
I want it written by ONE specialist and 5 generalists- the specialist to give the industry-specific inputs and outputs, the generalists to make sure that when you get a given input, the system will reliably give the expected output with 100% uptime.
You need both, but you need fewer specialists than you do generalists. Oh, and the Fred Brooks Method says You Shalt Not Have A Software Development Team Greater Than Six.
The difference between a junior developer and an expert programmer- having a large bag o' tricks to pull from in cases of short deadline.
I think a better piece of evidence is the story two weeks ago in The Register, a rehash of the story in New Scientist, that given 45 years you can have a Fully functional human being with no cerebral cortex.
Missed something. You made this specific point:
All Schiavo had left were lower brain structures that regulate autonomous functions. The autopsy showed that her cortex was gone.
The MRI shows that This Guy's cortex is also gone. He's even missing those lower brain structures that regulate autonomous functions. Instead, he's got a thin layer of brain tissue on the OUTSIDE of his brain that does it all- and allows him to be a father and a bureaucrat. Of course- it took him 45 years to get there.....
On the other hand, if the best thing I can look forward too after years of stimulation and therapy is the intellect of end stage Alzheimer's patient then forget it.
Where I find value even in such a life- I spent a year audiotaping my grandmother as she descended through the last stages of Alzheimer's. It's my fear that you have been influenced by bigots- bigots who are no different than the Eugenicists and anti-disability movements of the past.
I understand the fear- the fear of costing your family "more than you are worth", the fear of dependence on other human beings. But those are false fears- and even somebody with the intellect of a bureaucrat can provide service to humanity.
Now granted- it took the Frenchman 45 years to get there....
Maybe not "the right way." That's a conceit common to our profession: that our way is "right." But at least a GOOD way to code it.
In the case of dealing with any customer "the right way" is the way that can be commented for future maintenance & works without bugs. If your code can do that, then it is most certainly "the right way"- the right way for the conditions of the job.
Was to the 400 disc CD Changer.
Seriously, we knew ALL of this a long time ago. HR just has yet to catch up- they'd rather hire 100 slightly-less-than-competent people who have the right keywords on their resume than a single lazy generalist who will figure out the right way to code it the first time regardless of how new they are to the language. And it's the second one you want. The real bottleneck isn't finding expert programmers- it's finding HR people who understand this industry.
There are bound to be cases where we can argue till the cows come home how much of the mind is left. Hers wasn't one of them. Where the forebrain should have been, there was cerebrospinal fluid. There was nothing left. Her case does not compare with the case in TFA.
Correct, her case more closely mirrors This article from last week where a man with a 75 IQ was discovered whose ENTIRE brain was cerebrospinal fluid- except for a thin skin on the surface. Of course, he was given 45 years to recover from his initial injury (in childhood, he was a victim of hydrocephalus, and a malfunctioning shunt was likely the cause of his injury), and Terry was given what, 15 years?
Assuming the damage could have been repaired, what of the data lost? It's not like we had a backup copy of her mind, her memories, or the other aspects of her identity.
This however, is true. But who are you to say that her new mind, her new memories, her new identity, could not have accomplished something new? Have you left proof behind and become a soothsayer?