One manager I know is Miss 80%. She used to be more hands-on, and mostly everything I've seen her build was half-baked. And since she didn't understand the 80/20 rule, she didn't understand that cleaning up her mess would take a lot more than her initial effort. To her, everything was simple, because she'd really only done 20% of the work - the easy part.
Yet another zealot who think's he's discovered the One True Way, whereas all he's really accomplished is that he's easily replaced, which is what companies love.
(And btw, all these other languages are partly inferior because they didn't adopt Python's genius significant whitespace. Most language designers must be stupid to miss that!)
Republicans are obstructionists; remember the government shutdown? Or are you going to blame that on the Democrats?
Read www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/04/1127557/-A-tale-of-two-party-platforms-a-choice-of-the-future-or-the-past and see if you still think the parties are the same. You'll probably say it's all words. It's true that a lack of spine and the Blue Dogs are hurting the Democrats among its progressive base.
Im from Europe and have had first hand experience with the health care system there. I had full coverage for anything needed and never had any trouble with it.
At any rate, keep on posting but I'm done talking with you. Good luck with your messed up country!
I just posted about what happened in Tennessee where Republicans rejected a Republican(!) plan to help 280.000 low-income people. Did you think the government shutdown or all the wasted attempts to repeal Obamacare helped the poor? Or reinstating medical spending caps and pre-existing conditions?
Right, all those people that advanced physics in the early 20th century were all millionaires.
Some accumulation of capital by some people is okay. But excessive wealth imbalance which enables more of it is bad for society. Who is going to buy the stuff the capitalists make if everybody is living on subsistence wages?
The middle class isn't hurt by taxing investment income. The middle class is hurt by taxing wages, since that is its primary source of income. Investment income happens while you sleep and others work, and therefore we should tax the hell out of it.
You're right, it doesn't make sense that almost half the country would vote for people who want destroy them. But that's the power of wedge issues, and racism. And thus you get the government you deserve.
I'm not going to comment on the rest of your nonsense. Good night.
Sure, in lots of ways the Democrats are terrible, but the Republicans are far worse.
So you have terrible government, which seems to be a reflection of the apathy towards politics enjoyed by the majority of Americans. You get the government you deserve. That doesn't mean all government is necessarily bad.
Socialism as practiced in Western Europe doesn't seem so bad. At least they have decent health care. But of course the American system which spends way more and has worse outcomes is superior because Murikah, yeah!
You think Republicans represent poor rural people? Don't make me laugh.
I shouldn't have to explain this, but Republicans use racism, homophobia, abortion and gun-fondling as wedge issues to rally these people who would otherwise have no reason to vote for them, given that their economic policies consistently harm the poor and middle class.
I didn't say there shouldn't be any charity. Please don't put words into my mouth and then attack me on them.
What is your solution for the damage that is being inflicted by the ever-expanding wealth gap? Ignore it? Cut taxes?
I just read that Tennessee voted against a plan to provide 280,000 low-income Tennesseans with federally funded health insurance. Oh well, who cares about poor people. Keep voting Republican, suckers.
Because he didn't fix this he didn't change anything? He changed lots of things, like the ACA which eliminated lifetime caps and pre-existing conditions as an exclusionary criterion for health insurance. Is he perfect? Of course not. But if nothing else, he did less damage than Bush (a low bar, I know).
Odd. You seem like a smart person but you seem to miss the fact that politics affect all of us. Of course, that is what the people in charge want.
I wish Democrats positioned themselves more as socialists. As it is, they are mostly spineless and beholden to the same moneyed interests as the Republicans, maybe a little less so but the result is still that the status quo is mostly maintained.
We shouldn't need charity in a society that takes care of its citizens.
Small businesses flourished under Bush is your position? Seriously?
Republicans only care about the 1%, nothing else. If you believe otherwise, you are seriously deluded. But that is what they want, so you will vote for them and support them, so they can pillage the country and squeeze some more money out of the vanishing middle class.
I know, scary huh? That's how libertarians tend to think. Basically, "fuck you, I've got mine". Let's privatize everything, yadda yadda. We are rugged individuals, we can take care of ourselves, we don't need no steenking gubmint. If you can't hack it you're a loser and you deserve to die. I could go on but it gets boring and repetitive, so I'll stop here.
It's not about social skills. When it comes to attraction, it's all about looks. Looks are a turn on. For both men and women. Repeating this claim that somehow behavior can overcome a lack of physical interest is very damaging because it sends people on a fruitless quest that will never succeed. It's really not about that. All this vague talk about "confidence" is just that: talk. Instead, just be yourself, it's much less work than trying to project something you are not. If he doesn't like the way you look, you will never be more than friends. End of story, move on, as there's nothing you or he can do besides being honest about it (which is something that yes, we could all work on).
Here's the rule: your looks will determine whether someone will consider sleeping with you; only if you fall in the "maybe" category, will your behavior determine whether it will actually happen. Most people, especially younger folks, will not sleep with someone they find physically unattractive (or too short, if you are a guy). It's a market, and people are unlikely to settle if they think they can do better. This goes especially for people that are of more than average attractiveness: they find they have options and and will all else equal prefer someone physically attractive over someone who is not.
You cannot be both omnipotent and omniscient at the same time. If you change your mind later, your knowledge of the future would have been wrong. Conversely, you wouldn't be able to do just anything anytime (as omnipotence implies), since it would invalidate your past knowledge.
Slashdot Mirror
This.
One manager I know is Miss 80%. She used to be more hands-on, and mostly everything I've seen her build was half-baked. And since she didn't understand the 80/20 rule, she didn't understand that cleaning up her mess would take a lot more than her initial effort. To her, everything was simple, because she'd really only done 20% of the work - the easy part.
Yet another zealot who think's he's discovered the One True Way, whereas all he's really accomplished is that he's easily replaced, which is what companies love.
(And btw, all these other languages are partly inferior because they didn't adopt Python's genius significant whitespace. Most language designers must be stupid to miss that!)
Is the altar on which mediocre programmers worship.
Managers love it because it makes people easily replaceable, like cogs in a machine.
Python programmers make for good cogs.
It limits expressiveness for no reason other than dogma.
which already has that.
Ruby is Python's less constrained cousin.
Republicans are obstructionists; remember the government shutdown? Or are you going to blame that on the Democrats?
Read www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/04/1127557/-A-tale-of-two-party-platforms-a-choice-of-the-future-or-the-past and see if you still think the parties are the same. You'll probably say it's all words. It's true that a lack of spine and the Blue Dogs are hurting the Democrats among its progressive base.
Im from Europe and have had first hand experience with the health care system there. I had full coverage for anything needed and never had any trouble with it.
At any rate, keep on posting but I'm done talking with you. Good luck with your messed up country!
Thanks!
Please do your own research.
I just posted about what happened in Tennessee where Republicans rejected a Republican(!) plan to help 280.000 low-income people. Did you think the government shutdown or all the wasted attempts to repeal Obamacare helped the poor? Or reinstating medical spending caps and pre-existing conditions?
Please lay off watching Fox News.
We need the rich in order to to innovate?
Right, all those people that advanced physics in the early 20th century were all millionaires.
Some accumulation of capital by some people is okay. But excessive wealth imbalance which enables more of it is bad for society. Who is going to buy the stuff the capitalists make if everybody is living on subsistence wages?
Don't you think people suffer from lack of money?
Do you think bridges maintain themselves?
You sound like a shill for the wealthy.
The middle class isn't hurt by taxing investment income. The middle class is hurt by taxing wages, since that is its primary source of income. Investment income happens while you sleep and others work, and therefore we should tax the hell out of it.
You're right, it doesn't make sense that almost half the country would vote for people who want destroy them. But that's the power of wedge issues, and racism. And thus you get the government you deserve.
I'm not going to comment on the rest of your nonsense. Good night.
Sure, in lots of ways the Democrats are terrible, but the Republicans are far worse.
So you have terrible government, which seems to be a reflection of the apathy towards politics enjoyed by the majority of Americans. You get the government you deserve. That doesn't mean all government is necessarily bad.
Socialism as practiced in Western Europe doesn't seem so bad. At least they have decent health care. But of course the American system which spends way more and has worse outcomes is superior because Murikah, yeah!
You think Republicans represent poor rural people? Don't make me laugh.
I shouldn't have to explain this, but Republicans use racism, homophobia, abortion and gun-fondling as wedge issues to rally these people who would otherwise have no reason to vote for them, given that their economic policies consistently harm the poor and middle class.
Welcome to the race to the bottom, brought to you by Walmart.
I didn't say there shouldn't be any charity. Please don't put words into my mouth and then attack me on them.
What is your solution for the damage that is being inflicted by the ever-expanding wealth gap? Ignore it? Cut taxes?
I just read that Tennessee voted against a plan to provide 280,000 low-income Tennesseans with federally funded health insurance. Oh well, who cares about poor people. Keep voting Republican, suckers.
Speaking as someone who lost a few family members as a result of cancer, I wonder how you'll feel if that were to really happen to you.
I would not make fun of it, and I hope it won't happen to you, because it would be a miserable way to die.
Because he didn't fix this he didn't change anything? He changed lots of things, like the ACA which eliminated lifetime caps and pre-existing conditions as an exclusionary criterion for health insurance. Is he perfect? Of course not. But if nothing else, he did less damage than Bush (a low bar, I know).
Odd. You seem like a smart person but you seem to miss the fact that politics affect all of us. Of course, that is what the people in charge want.
I wish Democrats positioned themselves more as socialists. As it is, they are mostly spineless and beholden to the same moneyed interests as the Republicans, maybe a little less so but the result is still that the status quo is mostly maintained.
We shouldn't need charity in a society that takes care of its citizens.
Small businesses flourished under Bush is your position? Seriously?
Republicans only care about the 1%, nothing else. If you believe otherwise, you are seriously deluded. But that is what they want, so you will vote for them and support them, so they can pillage the country and squeeze some more money out of the vanishing middle class.
I know, scary huh? That's how libertarians tend to think. Basically, "fuck you, I've got mine". Let's privatize everything, yadda yadda. We are rugged individuals, we can take care of ourselves, we don't need no steenking gubmint. If you can't hack it you're a loser and you deserve to die. I could go on but it gets boring and repetitive, so I'll stop here.
I agree this person needs to seek counseling.
Seems to make sense, no?
It's not about social skills. When it comes to attraction, it's all about looks. Looks are a turn on. For both men and women. Repeating this claim that somehow behavior can overcome a lack of physical interest is very damaging because it sends people on a fruitless quest that will never succeed. It's really not about that. All this vague talk about "confidence" is just that: talk. Instead, just be yourself, it's much less work than trying to project something you are not. If he doesn't like the way you look, you will never be more than friends. End of story, move on, as there's nothing you or he can do besides being honest about it (which is something that yes, we could all work on).
Here's the rule: your looks will determine whether someone will consider sleeping with you; only if you fall in the "maybe" category, will your behavior determine whether it will actually happen. Most people, especially younger folks, will not sleep with someone they find physically unattractive (or too short, if you are a guy). It's a market, and people are unlikely to settle if they think they can do better. This goes especially for people that are of more than average attractiveness: they find they have options and and will all else equal prefer someone physically attractive over someone who is not.
You cannot be both omnipotent and omniscient at the same time. If you change your mind later, your knowledge of the future would have been wrong. Conversely, you wouldn't be able to do just anything anytime (as omnipotence implies), since it would invalidate your past knowledge.
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/657117-can-omniscient-god-who-knows-the-future-find-the-omnipotence
...all carriers used compatible cell technologies? The lack of compatibility/portability of cell phones distorts the market.