When you're talking generalities, there's always exceptions. Note that I merely took exception to the refutation of "99.99% were poor because of their own decisions". I actually made no statement that 99.99% were poor for any reason, only noting that there was enough evidence to debunk the 99.99% number on the refutal just from anecdotal evidence. That was all I was originally attempting to state. Perhaps I needed to pause before hitting the submit button to rephrase it and could have avoided some of the misunderstandings.
Live in various portions of Europe before you spout nonsense. There are certain things that are better in Europe, or Canada for that matter. There are other things that are better in the US over Europe. It's really about what's important to you, and whether you like the tradeoffs in one place vs another.
It still sounds like you're trying to draw conclusions about a large number of people from the anecdotal evidence of your own experience of a very small subset of those people. Plus, you're assuming that "having a new car" = " being irresponsible", and that "living in a poorer neighborhood" = "living next to people you don't want to be around".
I've had a rather unusual experience, having lived in roughly 30 addresses across more than 2 decades, in a large number and types of housing across multiple states and countries. While still "small" as far as even the US population goes, I'd say my exposure exceeds the norm, and my impressions, while still anecdotal and relatively small, certainly are more valid than the 75% who never move from the state they grew up in, or only moved once. And no, I wasn't an Army brat who lived in the cloister of the armed forces housing.
All in all, what this conversation seems to be revealing to me is that you have some issues surrounding economic insecurity that you still need to deal with. It's sort of like hearing someone rant and rave about how fat people are all lazy and stupid, citing as evidence, "I know what I'm talking about because my dad was a fat piece of shit." In that circumstance, it the evidence cited doesn't really prove that fat people are all lazy and stupid, but rather that the person speaking has some daddy issues.
I freely admit to economic insecurity, until you're financially independent, you should be. (not you, specifically, the general "you") Where that is for anyone varies, obviously, but I've not reached a level I consider secure.
I did not state 99.99% of the poor did not choose wisely, I took exception to the statement that 99.99% of the poor got their through no fault of their own, as effectively stated by interkin3tic. So I think we actually agree on that.
Red-necks have been around as an identified group for something like 200 years, with several of those varying groups over the years still being identified as rednecks today. Rednecks became chic around the 1970s as a group. Some quick research outside of your millennial shell would do you some good.
You get bonus points for correctly referencing redlining from the 30s. Your second link I draw a conclusion from it that like beliefs prefer like beliefs, and am unclear what you're driving at.
For purposes of the statement here, the distinction was that the group under consideration has a large enough subset showing what I'm deeming irresponsible behavior and to be the group I can understand people don't want living next door. (Part of the post and its parent I was originally responding to) Having been there myself multiple times, living next to these types of irresponsible people has more negative effects than merely lowering your property value, whether that is in houses, townhouses, condos, or apartments. I've also been poor myself, without the new car however. It's part of the reason I'm no longer poor.
Maybe we derailed somewhere in this conversation. Someone made the claim "99.99% of 'poor people' are 'poor' due to irresponsible behavior." Someone else responded, disagreeing. You responded saying:
I'd say a lot of evidence is out there to the contrary. I see much newer vehicles in what we consider poor neighborhoods than what's in my driveway.
Yes, I think we did derail, which is why I ended with my statement. We didn't qualify what "poor" meant. I took poor to mean in this sense to limit it to a group that could afford non-subsidized prefab housing located in CA, per TFS. That is certainly not "poor" as in those that need gov help or they're out on the street.
Standards bodies, AFAIK, have never been ahead of the curve. The problem is when innovation is carried out by a monopoly that can leverage the existing monopoly to enforce its "innovations" (ActiveX is a big one there, although businesses were pretty dumb to lock in and attempt to grab the falling knife) Flash was interesting in its first few incarnations, but its shortcomings were too great to overcome.)
OK, find that original population and we can give it back to them.
More than one was exterminated, for all intents and purposes
Or, you can acknowledge that they are probably intermingled with American Indians and they are the same people.
There are traces left, per the genetic studies. It's actually how we were able to confirm the identity of some of the previous populations. But what you're stating is essentially to the victor go the spoils.
The poor people with newer cars thing is a rooted in racism.
I guess this goes for all those red-neck neighborhoods with the jacked up 4X4s and spare truck parts littering the unkempt yards? Or were you being racist?
(Those would be the neighborhoods we'd consider as candidate population for these cheaper units)
That doesn't change anything about the meaning of what you were saying. As far as the accusation of a straw-man argument, it makes it seem like you don't really understand what a "straw-man" is.
So you can't make the distinction between actually poor people and people that live in undesirable areas yet still own new cars? They're still considered "poor", but they're not destitute and might be able to afford to move into the cheaper high density apartments, whereas the first group can't. Or, are you making the argument this latter group is middle class? I actually kind of would like to know your thinking here. Maybe I was considering the wrong group in your "poor" categorization based on my assumption they could afford to move into cheaper high density apartments, per GGGP, and not a government subsidized Section 8 development, although high density apartments seem to go that way sooner or later in a lot of areas.
I'd say a lot of evidence is out there to the contrary. I see much newer vehicles in what we consider poor neighborhoods than what's in my driveway.
You think all poor people are poor because they're irresponsible, and your big evidence is "I've seen poor people that drive a newer car than mine"? I mean, what, you couldn't even find a vague and misleading statistic from the Heritage Foundation to back that up?
Nice editing, let's leave off the important qualifier from the quote which I explicitly put there to address the inevitable nonsense crap like your strawman.
IOW, MS is copying a specific open source project, otherwise known as Eclipse? Except Eclipse actually works, while VS.... Well, let's say there's a special cubicle in hell for those working on VS, where they will continually have to swap machines in various configurations of MS OSes and Visual Studio versions which don't match the required codebase and do nothing else but try to get a build to work. Completion means a new machine, or a project update driven by the BOFH.
Yes a phrase that was used about 35 years ago. But please, tell me how EEE would work when it's open source.
Check IE. As soon as you extend via a proprietary component, open source be damned. Owning the entire delivery chain allows you to do these things, and DoJ be damned. Not much good to be fined your profits to date after your competition has been wiped off the map, leaving you with nothing but profit afterwards.
Because that's the first major stumbling block in how math is taught in the US. If you can't get past fractions, you are doomed to relatively low-level jobs, because your education just stopped.
Whatever the merits or pitfalls of a particular language (or method) ultimately what differentiates a good coder vs a bad one, is not their choice of programing language but rather the time and effort the programer dedicated to the mastery of their skills
Oh, I'd disagree. A COBOL or Visual BASIC programmer, for instance, has no idea about a whole range of functionality that they're missing. They might be a great programmer compared to others in their chosen language, but their language constrains them in ways that prevents them from reaching their potential as compared to what's possible had they chosen a different language. Not only that, but their choice of language may make it inherently difficult for them to switch to another language, as they will have to expand their knowledge base around more than just syntax to be proficient in them.
Recent studies reveal that the American Indians were no earlier than the third set of people to populate the Americas, in a wave dating from around 10,000 years ago and overran the existing populations. Pacific Islanders and an Asiatic group were earlier, dating between 13,000-20,000 years ago. IIRC, genetic analysis of the peoples of north and south america confirm the presence of at least one earlier people that were absorbed by the current "original" population. I am also positive that further study will reveal a richer past heritage in the Americas, and that all current groups can only claim ownership because they have eliminated their predecessors.
99.99% of "poor people" are "poor" due to irresponsible behavior.
Quite the opposite.
I'd say a lot of evidence is out there to the contrary. I see much newer vehicles in what we consider poor neighborhoods than what's in my driveway. (Those would be the neighborhoods we'd consider as candidate population for these cheaper units)
The bay area has been absurdly overpriced single unit zoning for decades. If they don't like it, they could have started building up. Homeowners, as they always do, said "no, That'll reduce my property value and increase congestion unles we build up the BART and I don't want that either." The whole "I got mine, FU" blows back on them? Great. I hope they build the ugliest prefab houses and it halves the home values in the area.
Seems like the simpler solution in this case is for Google to build an office building where it's workers live, not in an absurdly high priced area where only a small number of its employees live. Not all employees have to be under one roof, after all.
300 units is like throwing a single drop of water into a lake. And, according to one story I've read, the price Google is paying for this works out to $100,000 per unit. For a bunch of pre-fabricated shit boxes that will look like a slum hotel within a year.
But it could be that drop is the last straw.
Now, as for pre-fab looking like shit, well, that's merely a matter of the quality of pre-fab chosen. Just remember that something that isn't pre-fab can also just as easily look like shit. There was a modular hi-rise built somewhere where the modules were concrete units that just slipped into a supporting framework, IIRC. The finished product looked better than some of the more classically designed and built hi rises.
Slashdot Mirror
When you're talking generalities, there's always exceptions. Note that I merely took exception to the refutation of "99.99% were poor because of their own decisions". I actually made no statement that 99.99% were poor for any reason, only noting that there was enough evidence to debunk the 99.99% number on the refutal just from anecdotal evidence. That was all I was originally attempting to state. Perhaps I needed to pause before hitting the submit button to rephrase it and could have avoided some of the misunderstandings.
Live in various portions of Europe before you spout nonsense. There are certain things that are better in Europe, or Canada for that matter. There are other things that are better in the US over Europe. It's really about what's important to you, and whether you like the tradeoffs in one place vs another.
It still sounds like you're trying to draw conclusions about a large number of people from the anecdotal evidence of your own experience of a very small subset of those people. Plus, you're assuming that "having a new car" = " being irresponsible", and that "living in a poorer neighborhood" = "living next to people you don't want to be around".
I've had a rather unusual experience, having lived in roughly 30 addresses across more than 2 decades, in a large number and types of housing across multiple states and countries. While still "small" as far as even the US population goes, I'd say my exposure exceeds the norm, and my impressions, while still anecdotal and relatively small, certainly are more valid than the 75% who never move from the state they grew up in, or only moved once. And no, I wasn't an Army brat who lived in the cloister of the armed forces housing.
All in all, what this conversation seems to be revealing to me is that you have some issues surrounding economic insecurity that you still need to deal with. It's sort of like hearing someone rant and rave about how fat people are all lazy and stupid, citing as evidence, "I know what I'm talking about because my dad was a fat piece of shit." In that circumstance, it the evidence cited doesn't really prove that fat people are all lazy and stupid, but rather that the person speaking has some daddy issues.
I freely admit to economic insecurity, until you're financially independent, you should be. (not you, specifically, the general "you") Where that is for anyone varies, obviously, but I've not reached a level I consider secure.
I did not state 99.99% of the poor did not choose wisely, I took exception to the statement that 99.99% of the poor got their through no fault of their own, as effectively stated by interkin3tic. So I think we actually agree on that.
Then you missed the point of my original post.
Red-necks have been around as an identified group for something like 200 years, with several of those varying groups over the years still being identified as rednecks today. Rednecks became chic around the 1970s as a group. Some quick research outside of your millennial shell would do you some good.
You get bonus points for correctly referencing redlining from the 30s. Your second link I draw a conclusion from it that like beliefs prefer like beliefs, and am unclear what you're driving at.
For purposes of the statement here, the distinction was that the group under consideration has a large enough subset showing what I'm deeming irresponsible behavior and to be the group I can understand people don't want living next door. (Part of the post and its parent I was originally responding to) Having been there myself multiple times, living next to these types of irresponsible people has more negative effects than merely lowering your property value, whether that is in houses, townhouses, condos, or apartments. I've also been poor myself, without the new car however. It's part of the reason I'm no longer poor.
Maybe we derailed somewhere in this conversation. Someone made the claim "99.99% of 'poor people' are 'poor' due to irresponsible behavior." Someone else responded, disagreeing. You responded saying: I'd say a lot of evidence is out there to the contrary. I see much newer vehicles in what we consider poor neighborhoods than what's in my driveway.
Yes, I think we did derail, which is why I ended with my statement. We didn't qualify what "poor" meant. I took poor to mean in this sense to limit it to a group that could afford non-subsidized prefab housing located in CA, per TFS. That is certainly not "poor" as in those that need gov help or they're out on the street.
Standards bodies, AFAIK, have never been ahead of the curve. The problem is when innovation is carried out by a monopoly that can leverage the existing monopoly to enforce its "innovations" (ActiveX is a big one there, although businesses were pretty dumb to lock in and attempt to grab the falling knife) Flash was interesting in its first few incarnations, but its shortcomings were too great to overcome.)
No, it is indicative of that specific subgroup's priorities.
Odd numbers please come with me. You're smelly.
OK, find that original population and we can give it back to them.
More than one was exterminated, for all intents and purposes
Or, you can acknowledge that they are probably intermingled with American Indians and they are the same people.
There are traces left, per the genetic studies. It's actually how we were able to confirm the identity of some of the previous populations. But what you're stating is essentially to the victor go the spoils.
The poor people with newer cars thing is a rooted in racism.
I guess this goes for all those red-neck neighborhoods with the jacked up 4X4s and spare truck parts littering the unkempt yards? Or were you being racist?
(Those would be the neighborhoods we'd consider as candidate population for these cheaper units)
That doesn't change anything about the meaning of what you were saying. As far as the accusation of a straw-man argument, it makes it seem like you don't really understand what a "straw-man" is.
So you can't make the distinction between actually poor people and people that live in undesirable areas yet still own new cars? They're still considered "poor", but they're not destitute and might be able to afford to move into the cheaper high density apartments, whereas the first group can't. Or, are you making the argument this latter group is middle class? I actually kind of would like to know your thinking here. Maybe I was considering the wrong group in your "poor" categorization based on my assumption they could afford to move into cheaper high density apartments, per GGGP, and not a government subsidized Section 8 development, although high density apartments seem to go that way sooner or later in a lot of areas.
A competent C programmer wouldn't use curses while programming UI interaction, although he might be cursing the library APIs.
I'd say a lot of evidence is out there to the contrary. I see much newer vehicles in what we consider poor neighborhoods than what's in my driveway.
You think all poor people are poor because they're irresponsible, and your big evidence is "I've seen poor people that drive a newer car than mine"? I mean, what, you couldn't even find a vague and misleading statistic from the Heritage Foundation to back that up?
Nice editing, let's leave off the important qualifier from the quote which I explicitly put there to address the inevitable nonsense crap like your strawman.
You realize Android runs java apps, right?
I'm not sure I'd want to develop *on* Android. 20 minute builds? No thanks.
IOW, MS is copying a specific open source project, otherwise known as Eclipse? Except Eclipse actually works, while VS.... Well, let's say there's a special cubicle in hell for those working on VS, where they will continually have to swap machines in various configurations of MS OSes and Visual Studio versions which don't match the required codebase and do nothing else but try to get a build to work. Completion means a new machine, or a project update driven by the BOFH.
Yes a phrase that was used about 35 years ago. But please, tell me how EEE would work when it's open source.
Check IE. As soon as you extend via a proprietary component, open source be damned. Owning the entire delivery chain allows you to do these things, and DoJ be damned. Not much good to be fined your profits to date after your competition has been wiped off the map, leaving you with nothing but profit afterwards.
Why is the US obsessed with fractions?
Because that's the first major stumbling block in how math is taught in the US. If you can't get past fractions, you are doomed to relatively low-level jobs, because your education just stopped.
Whatever the merits or pitfalls of a particular language (or method) ultimately what differentiates a good coder vs a bad one, is not their choice of programing language but rather the time and effort the programer dedicated to the mastery of their skills
Oh, I'd disagree. A COBOL or Visual BASIC programmer, for instance, has no idea about a whole range of functionality that they're missing. They might be a great programmer compared to others in their chosen language, but their language constrains them in ways that prevents them from reaching their potential as compared to what's possible had they chosen a different language. Not only that, but their choice of language may make it inherently difficult for them to switch to another language, as they will have to expand their knowledge base around more than just syntax to be proficient in them.
Geronimo,
GTFO off my lawn. I was here first.
---
Signed,
TkkTkk
Recent studies reveal that the American Indians were no earlier than the third set of people to populate the Americas, in a wave dating from around 10,000 years ago and overran the existing populations. Pacific Islanders and an Asiatic group were earlier, dating between 13,000-20,000 years ago. IIRC, genetic analysis of the peoples of north and south america confirm the presence of at least one earlier people that were absorbed by the current "original" population. I am also positive that further study will reveal a richer past heritage in the Americas, and that all current groups can only claim ownership because they have eliminated their predecessors.
99.99% of "poor people" are "poor" due to irresponsible behavior.
Quite the opposite.
I'd say a lot of evidence is out there to the contrary. I see much newer vehicles in what we consider poor neighborhoods than what's in my driveway. (Those would be the neighborhoods we'd consider as candidate population for these cheaper units)
The bay area has been absurdly overpriced single unit zoning for decades. If they don't like it, they could have started building up. Homeowners, as they always do, said "no, That'll reduce my property value and increase congestion unles we build up the BART and I don't want that either." The whole "I got mine, FU" blows back on them? Great. I hope they build the ugliest prefab houses and it halves the home values in the area.
Seems like the simpler solution in this case is for Google to build an office building where it's workers live, not in an absurdly high priced area where only a small number of its employees live. Not all employees have to be under one roof, after all.
Would 300 units even make a dent in the problem?
No,
300 units is like throwing a single drop of water into a lake. And, according to one story I've read, the price Google is paying for this works out to $100,000 per unit. For a bunch of pre-fabricated shit boxes that will look like a slum hotel within a year.
But it could be that drop is the last straw.
Now, as for pre-fab looking like shit, well, that's merely a matter of the quality of pre-fab chosen. Just remember that something that isn't pre-fab can also just as easily look like shit. There was a modular hi-rise built somewhere where the modules were concrete units that just slipped into a supporting framework, IIRC. The finished product looked better than some of the more classically designed and built hi rises.