If you're giving someone money, yes, it is okay to make some kind of moral judgment. Food is a necessity, but alcohol is not. If someone has no money but spends hand-outs on alcohol, yes, that shows a skew of priorities that may have made them homeless in the first place: an inability to delay gratification. Especially in this economy, people are unemployed because of tough times, but many of the chronically homeless suffer from mental illness (schizophrenia, bipolar, post-traumatic stress disorder, etc.), drug or alcohol addiction, low intelligence, or lack of life skills/inability to plan ahead.
This is why it's best to donate to charities that not only feed and shelter the homeless but also help them develop the life skills to survive on their own.
Wow, just wow. Grammar is syntax + morphology. 'I be working," is perfectly grammatical—according to the norms of a different dialect (such as African-American English Vernacular, or Ebonics). Standard English is just the dialect that has prestige and is considered the appropriate vehicle for writing academic papers, giving high-minded speeches, etc. Non-standard dialects may have a different set of verb tenses, moods, and aspects than the standard form, and this is to be expected because it's not the same. Even within the standard language, compare a work from 300 years ago with one written today. Things change (although the standard dialect is more conservative than popular speech).
The difference is between the innovative register of teenagers, immigrants, and other groups and the formal, written register of standard English. This formal register is by its nature more conservative than the innovative registers of teens and immigrants because it points back to perceive classics as its baseline. It aspires to create a common language that can reach across time and narrow community. "Cuz" may be fine as txtspeak, but it's not going to fly in an academic journal (unless it is a linguistics journal studying slang).
Technically, "Me and him [verb]" is grammatical; it's just nonstandard (i.e., the grammar is for dialect other than standard, formal English, presumably the kind you want your son to learn in class).
The Awesome Bar is pretty awesome; I don't know why there's been so much negativity about it here on Slashdot. Rather than organizing a bunch of bookmarks, I just remember a few key phrases from a website's URL or page title. This is especially useful where I work because we have many web apps in various stages of development, and the URL varies by port number. I just type in the port and get the version I want. Also I don't notice much of a slow-down on any of the PCs I've used it on.
The Tea Party is a conservative movement, and they seem awfully angry to me. The Left is filled with war protesters, Buddhist mindfulness practitioners, hippies, and potheads, so I think their anger is going to be comparatively checked.
Well, the right/wrong dichotomy just doesn't work in complicated social and political issues because it comes to things other than a simple empirical test. It's about values, priorities, cost/benefit, and incomplete knowledge of facts. For example, a historian cannot go back in time and see the events unfold in front of them or read the people's minds to know all their intentions, and again, with the very complex chain of cause and effect that is history, it's not always straightforward what caused what to happen. Various trends may have put an almost inevitability on some event (or something like it) happening, or a world leader may have had a hidden agenda. In politics, choices come down to what kind of society a person would like to live in and what policies would get us closer to it; people disagree here, and arguments that prove or disprove a position do so within the framework of assumptions/axioms/values they make (maximal economic efficiency is to an extent in conflict with living in a fair and just society, for example).
Even in the sciences, knowledge is not absolute. Scientists have to be open to revising their theories as new data comes in.
I have never noticed engineers being conservative nor particularly religious neither.
Software engineers are some of the most conservative people I've met, if not by politics/religion necessarily, then by temperament. Software engineers are not the people you go to when you need something done radically differently; they are cautious, meticulous, orderly, routine oriented, and good at taking direction. Within the problem domain, they can poke holes in the requirements, foresee problems, and design an appropriate solution; but they're not the people to go to for creative problem solving (what is the problem we ought to be solving in the first place?) or user-interface design (see the typical hobbyist open-source program). Software engineers also tend to have quite conventional (re: conservative) interests: pop culture, drinking, etc.; intellectually, how many have willingly cracked open a tract of philosophy or read something outside their occupation (at best, their intellectual interests may span the hard sciences and mathematics)?
I somewhat agree. The liberal software engineer is a dying breed. Witness Slashdot, where libertarians are constantly extolling the "magic of the market" as a solution to all problems and government as the problem by definition. We have our own orthodoxies, clearly, and they aren't much different from the Fundamentalist Christians or the Jihadist Muslims.
At the cost of sounding trite, it is. It's human nature to not want to do the same thing all the time, and once you've spent 40+ hours per week programming (well, minus all the office politics and other crap that gets mixed into the job), you may want to invest time in other hobbies too. I like to invest my time in other intellectual ventures and more physically active recreation. Also, I spend a good amount of time attacking the paradox of the social geek (the one who chats with the women he fancies). Does this mean I've never looked at a line of code or touched a compiler outside work? No, but it means I have other commitments, and I'd rather not degrade my life into a boring monomania.
It seems like there's a disproportionate number of people with bipolar disorder in the ranks of the artistically creative and a disproportionate number of scientific/mathematical geniuses with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like symptoms.
Well, none of the experts really agree on what the difference is between the terms, but if any distinction is made, it's usually that a sociopath got to be that way more through upbringing or bad environment, and a psychopath got to be that way through an in-born difference in temperament or early brain damage. Nowadays psychopaths are defined as a particularly virulent subset of people with an antisocial personality who, in addition to their criminal behavior, often have an ability to come off as normal and even likable, to basically talk their way out of trouble or talk people out of their life savings. They don't have to be rapists and murderers, and some of the more intelligent and less impulsive ones can "succeed," especially in more competitive industries.
Specifically, it refers to branches of Western Christianity that broke off from the Roman Catholic Church after Martin Luther's excommunication. Eastern Orthodox Christianity, possibly Anglican churches, Mormonism, and obviously non-Christianity would be excluded.
I found Richard Dawkins' The Ancestor's Tale to be an excellent read on "macro-evolution." He traverses the evolutionary family tree of human beings by successive common ancestor back to the bacteria and then speculates a bit on the origin of life from there. He admits where the data get fuzzier (i.e., the farther back you go), where it is harder to ascertain the exact ordering of common ancestry.
For those who have doubts about "macro-evolution" but not "micro-evolution," it can really clarify the links. I heartily recommend you read it.
A healthy philosophical skepticism and openness to correction of present accepted theory is one thing, but that's not at all what the debate is about.
The fundamental religionists have been trying ever cleverer ways to sneak religion into the classroom while undermining aspects of modernity that conflict with their worldview. It's not about tenaciously gripping to scientific orthodoxies but about preventing public school classrooms from becoming a proxy preacher's pulpit.
Yes, this much is well known. It looks like in the About... box for Erwise they even call it "WorldWideWeb / browser / for the X Window System". They obviously modeled after WorldWideWeb/Nexus for the NeXTStep.
Honestly, reading this article, I thought the writer was using the word censorship to appeal to the Slashdot crowd while venting a grievance for his apparently unheralded genius going unrecognized.
Really, no one's expecting every philosopher and artist to be their own publicist. They're different skills. If you really want to get your ideas out there, hire someone who knows how to work social connections and appeal to psychological heuristics to publicize and market what you've got. They can make crap sell, so if your stuff's as good as you think, so much the better.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's see:
Bah, I have yet to find a full-featured IDE in the AppStore.
If you're giving someone money, yes, it is okay to make some kind of moral judgment. Food is a necessity, but alcohol is not. If someone has no money but spends hand-outs on alcohol, yes, that shows a skew of priorities that may have made them homeless in the first place: an inability to delay gratification. Especially in this economy, people are unemployed because of tough times, but many of the chronically homeless suffer from mental illness (schizophrenia, bipolar, post-traumatic stress disorder, etc.), drug or alcohol addiction, low intelligence, or lack of life skills/inability to plan ahead. This is why it's best to donate to charities that not only feed and shelter the homeless but also help them develop the life skills to survive on their own.
Wow, just wow. Grammar is syntax + morphology. 'I be working," is perfectly grammatical—according to the norms of a different dialect (such as African-American English Vernacular, or Ebonics). Standard English is just the dialect that has prestige and is considered the appropriate vehicle for writing academic papers, giving high-minded speeches, etc. Non-standard dialects may have a different set of verb tenses, moods, and aspects than the standard form, and this is to be expected because it's not the same. Even within the standard language, compare a work from 300 years ago with one written today. Things change (although the standard dialect is more conservative than popular speech).
The difference is between the innovative register of teenagers, immigrants, and other groups and the formal, written register of standard English. This formal register is by its nature more conservative than the innovative registers of teens and immigrants because it points back to perceive classics as its baseline. It aspires to create a common language that can reach across time and narrow community. "Cuz" may be fine as txtspeak, but it's not going to fly in an academic journal (unless it is a linguistics journal studying slang).
Technically, "Me and him [verb]" is grammatical; it's just nonstandard (i.e., the grammar is for dialect other than standard, formal English, presumably the kind you want your son to learn in class).
the next genaration, can write just, fine thank u :) lol i sprinkled on extra comas for extra flavour ;) now wears my degree???!!!
The Awesome Bar is pretty awesome; I don't know why there's been so much negativity about it here on Slashdot. Rather than organizing a bunch of bookmarks, I just remember a few key phrases from a website's URL or page title. This is especially useful where I work because we have many web apps in various stages of development, and the URL varies by port number. I just type in the port and get the version I want. Also I don't notice much of a slow-down on any of the PCs I've used it on.
The Tea Party is a conservative movement, and they seem awfully angry to me. The Left is filled with war protesters, Buddhist mindfulness practitioners, hippies, and potheads, so I think their anger is going to be comparatively checked.
if (strcmp(entry->description, "lose luggage") == 0) { loseLuggage(entry); } (It's been awhile since I've done anything vaguely C.)
Well, the right/wrong dichotomy just doesn't work in complicated social and political issues because it comes to things other than a simple empirical test. It's about values, priorities, cost/benefit, and incomplete knowledge of facts. For example, a historian cannot go back in time and see the events unfold in front of them or read the people's minds to know all their intentions, and again, with the very complex chain of cause and effect that is history, it's not always straightforward what caused what to happen. Various trends may have put an almost inevitability on some event (or something like it) happening, or a world leader may have had a hidden agenda. In politics, choices come down to what kind of society a person would like to live in and what policies would get us closer to it; people disagree here, and arguments that prove or disprove a position do so within the framework of assumptions/axioms/values they make (maximal economic efficiency is to an extent in conflict with living in a fair and just society, for example).
Even in the sciences, knowledge is not absolute. Scientists have to be open to revising their theories as new data comes in.
I have never noticed engineers being conservative nor particularly religious neither.
Software engineers are some of the most conservative people I've met, if not by politics/religion necessarily, then by temperament. Software engineers are not the people you go to when you need something done radically differently; they are cautious, meticulous, orderly, routine oriented, and good at taking direction. Within the problem domain, they can poke holes in the requirements, foresee problems, and design an appropriate solution; but they're not the people to go to for creative problem solving (what is the problem we ought to be solving in the first place?) or user-interface design (see the typical hobbyist open-source program). Software engineers also tend to have quite conventional (re: conservative) interests: pop culture, drinking, etc.; intellectually, how many have willingly cracked open a tract of philosophy or read something outside their occupation (at best, their intellectual interests may span the hard sciences and mathematics)?
I somewhat agree. The liberal software engineer is a dying breed. Witness Slashdot, where libertarians are constantly extolling the "magic of the market" as a solution to all problems and government as the problem by definition. We have our own orthodoxies, clearly, and they aren't much different from the Fundamentalist Christians or the Jihadist Muslims.
Probably, given Islam prohibits the consumption of alcohol.
Because of a little invention called the Internets.
At the cost of sounding trite, it is. It's human nature to not want to do the same thing all the time, and once you've spent 40+ hours per week programming (well, minus all the office politics and other crap that gets mixed into the job), you may want to invest time in other hobbies too. I like to invest my time in other intellectual ventures and more physically active recreation. Also, I spend a good amount of time attacking the paradox of the social geek (the one who chats with the women he fancies). Does this mean I've never looked at a line of code or touched a compiler outside work? No, but it means I have other commitments, and I'd rather not degrade my life into a boring monomania.
It seems like there's a disproportionate number of people with bipolar disorder in the ranks of the artistically creative and a disproportionate number of scientific/mathematical geniuses with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like symptoms.
Funny capitalism made this mess in the first place: "...the cause of and solution to all of life's problems" much?
Well, none of the experts really agree on what the difference is between the terms, but if any distinction is made, it's usually that a sociopath got to be that way more through upbringing or bad environment, and a psychopath got to be that way through an in-born difference in temperament or early brain damage. Nowadays psychopaths are defined as a particularly virulent subset of people with an antisocial personality who, in addition to their criminal behavior, often have an ability to come off as normal and even likable, to basically talk their way out of trouble or talk people out of their life savings. They don't have to be rapists and murderers, and some of the more intelligent and less impulsive ones can "succeed," especially in more competitive industries.
Psychopathy and antisocial personality disorder are usually considered aggravating factors instead of mitigating factors.
Specifically, it refers to branches of Western Christianity that broke off from the Roman Catholic Church after Martin Luther's excommunication. Eastern Orthodox Christianity, possibly Anglican churches, Mormonism, and obviously non-Christianity would be excluded.
I found Richard Dawkins' The Ancestor's Tale to be an excellent read on "macro-evolution." He traverses the evolutionary family tree of human beings by successive common ancestor back to the bacteria and then speculates a bit on the origin of life from there. He admits where the data get fuzzier (i.e., the farther back you go), where it is harder to ascertain the exact ordering of common ancestry.
For those who have doubts about "macro-evolution" but not "micro-evolution," it can really clarify the links. I heartily recommend you read it.
A healthy philosophical skepticism and openness to correction of present accepted theory is one thing, but that's not at all what the debate is about.
The fundamental religionists have been trying ever cleverer ways to sneak religion into the classroom while undermining aspects of modernity that conflict with their worldview. It's not about tenaciously gripping to scientific orthodoxies but about preventing public school classrooms from becoming a proxy preacher's pulpit.
Yes, this much is well known. It looks like in the About... box for Erwise they even call it "WorldWideWeb / browser / for the X Window System". They obviously modeled after WorldWideWeb/Nexus for the NeXTStep.
Honestly, reading this article, I thought the writer was using the word censorship to appeal to the Slashdot crowd while venting a grievance for his apparently unheralded genius going unrecognized.
Really, no one's expecting every philosopher and artist to be their own publicist. They're different skills. If you really want to get your ideas out there, hire someone who knows how to work social connections and appeal to psychological heuristics to publicize and market what you've got. They can make crap sell, so if your stuff's as good as you think, so much the better.