It has been 50 years away for about 50 years. Still dismal, but no-where near as bad as you say. And progress is still being made, so one-day we may have fusion still.
Well, is there really anything worth it in the moon?
If we could develop the technology for a fully functional permanent base: food production, living space, life-style (exercise), robot miners, energy production -- then we will be well on our way to colonising the stars. Also, with 1/6th the gravity well and no atmosphere, the moon may be a better place to plan and execute further exploration.
From what you have said, I don't think you really mean eugenics when you say eugenics -- creating a superior race by "breeding" humans. What do you think it means?
Eugenics, and a few of its kindred cousins, however are alive and well.
This is almost certainly one of a long list of social constructionist canards. There are probably a few eugenicists around; however, modern genetic research focuses on the dialogue between genes and environment.
The biological basis of behaviour is well established (See Turkheimer 2000 for a summary), and after 100 yrs of social science, there is no theory that predicts behaviour from social forces. (Things like attachment theory, and the media effects of violence/gender have no empirical backing -- see Pinker's Blank Slate for an overview.)
To preserve their "turf", so to speak, the humanities and social sciences are heavily invested in spreading myths about science and eugenics.
You accuse Harper of being at home with "eugenist-like" ideas. This may be true, but what exactly are you talking about? Because if you mean racism, then you are equivocating. (Racism, btw, almost certainly has a biological basis, as does political preference, as revealed by split twin studies, and adoption studies.)
its easy to get into a situation where you simply cannot upgrade to the next LTS without significant cost involved due to major version bumps in package
Precisely why FOSS is better. If there is a business case to be made for supporting RHEL x.x.x, then some company can do it. With windows XP, microsoft has all the cards, and can do what they want. Forcing the world to move on might be convenient for them, and that's the way the cookie crumbles.
It would hold water, except that the rest of the world made the transition without too much fuss. Imperial is better for song lyrics, sure, but for everything else, metric is superiour. The aesthetics of the imperial system give way to the creativity of a new generation, who are normalised the new terminology, in their own way.
This isn't necessarily a bad thing, for the most part, just a case of different people with different personalities finding roles in society where their traits are assets rather than liabilities.
You have to be kidding. Bullying and walking over people is never an asset in a civilized society. Only about 2% of people are like that, and they cause almost all of the problems.
If we didn't have the problem of sociopaths and psychopaths (pigs might fly), then our political and business system would actually be ethical, since 98% of the population doesn't have much of a problem with being ethical.
adding new things the government does FOR you without raising taxes to pay for them
.
I have a non-partisan point to make.
Reagan introduced one of the best laws regarding balancing the books. Every project had to prove funding before it was enacted. The proof of funding came from either raising taxes or showing cuts elsewhere. This law really helped the USA balance to books through the 90s.
Bush W. didn't like the rule, and let it lapse from the books before engaging in horrendous over-spending. (Not the non-partisan nature of this point. The Republicans introduced the solution and the Republicans subsequently removed it.)
For an example of adding new things the government does for you without raising taxes to pay for them: Medicare Part D. The cost of this program is set to eclipse the size of the US economy. It was very popular with the Republican voting base -- mainly older people.
I am all for small government, but let's make the debate less partisan, and more honest. The stronger the emotion, the more likely you are fooling yourself.
There is plenty of blame to go around for what happened. In his autobiography "Decision Points", Bush himself admits that he didn't make the best decisions. I respect that. The fact that Bush broke the books is history.
Cutting the budget in recession is almost universally acknowledged as bad by economists. Perhaps you are a genius who knows better. Publish your theory and collect a noble prize.
Somehow I think that pointing accusatory finger at others is a defence mechanism for how little you know.
Their growth will have to slow, pause, or reverse eventually and I doubt it will be nearly as dramatic as people think it will be.
These services affect old people, who generally get out and vote -- Republican. For all the Tea Party screaming, bet your bottom dollar that these 800lb gorilla institutions will be sustained until it is obvious that they are broken. Then there will be a dramatic regime change (just like Bush to Obama), and a whole lot of finger pointing after that fact.
They broke the law, proved their untrustworthiness and now are having to contend with that... it's called consequences.
I appreciate what you are saying. Without turning this into a black-and-white issue, consider the following points:
+ A reasonable proportion of people from disadvantaged minorities end up with wrongful convictions. For example, DNA testing showed that 15 of 205 death-row inmates were innocent.
+ There is such a thing as self-fulfilling prophecies. For example, if you go into a meeting expecting someone to be unreasonable, they more likely will be, and vice-versa. That is a measurable empirical fact of life. Our expectations of each other are powerful influences.
I would not advocate that convicted criminals should get a free pass. Obviously it is an imperfect world.
The point is, that the word border is being redefined to cover places where 66% of US citizens live. Basically this means that officials can seize the personal possessions of most Americans without any legal recourse at all.
Perhaps you believe that these officials can be trusted. Perhaps that is the case today. However, there is a reason why "malfeasance" is a word in the dictionary.
at least he's probably doing better than most professors in terms of being useful to humanity in general.
I agree with that. The future of wikipedia, or sites like it, could serve to be a summary of a particular issue, and a portal into the most relevant peer-reviewed articles. This is an excellent example, and does a much better job of summaries the debate than any of the peer reviewed "scientific" articles in the field.
Relational algebra is far simpler than SQL for anything moderately complex. The theory and maths are well developed, but there are no implementations. SQL is loosely based on relational algebra, but the "lets-make-this-real-simple" mentality has had the reverse effect. Relational algebra is actually far easier to learn, and becomes expressive like a regular computer language.
You may be right, but his argument is not without merit. I have seen some SQL queries grow out of control, and they are quite difficult to understand. From a maintenance point of view, this is a disaster.
SQL was created to make things simpler -- but like all "next-generation" technologies, it is only simpler for simple cases.
Slashdot Mirror
It has been 50 years away for about 50 years. Still dismal, but no-where near as bad as you say. And progress is still being made, so one-day we may have fusion still.
Well, is there really anything worth it in the moon?
If we could develop the technology for a fully functional permanent base: food production, living space, life-style (exercise), robot miners, energy production -- then we will be well on our way to colonising the stars. Also, with 1/6th the gravity well and no atmosphere, the moon may be a better place to plan and execute further exploration.
From what you have said, I don't think you really mean eugenics when you say eugenics -- creating a superior race by "breeding" humans. What do you think it means?
Eugenics, and a few of its kindred cousins, however are alive and well.
This is almost certainly one of a long list of social constructionist canards. There are probably a few eugenicists around; however, modern genetic research focuses on the dialogue between genes and environment.
The biological basis of behaviour is well established (See Turkheimer 2000 for a summary), and after 100 yrs of social science, there is no theory that predicts behaviour from social forces. (Things like attachment theory, and the media effects of violence/gender have no empirical backing -- see Pinker's Blank Slate for an overview.)
To preserve their "turf", so to speak, the humanities and social sciences are heavily invested in spreading myths about science and eugenics.
You accuse Harper of being at home with "eugenist-like" ideas. This may be true, but what exactly are you talking about? Because if you mean racism, then you are equivocating. (Racism, btw, almost certainly has a biological basis, as does political preference, as revealed by split twin studies, and adoption studies.)
Eugenics, and a few of its kindred cousins, however are alive and well.
Yawn. The opposite ideology, the equally wrong "Social Constructionism" dominates. So... were are these eugenicis scuttling around then?
its easy to get into a situation where you simply cannot upgrade to the next LTS without significant cost involved due to major version bumps in package
Precisely why FOSS is better. If there is a business case to be made for supporting RHEL x.x.x, then some company can do it. With windows XP, microsoft has all the cards, and can do what they want. Forcing the world to move on might be convenient for them, and that's the way the cookie crumbles.
Um...last time I checked there are around 73,357,145,315* companies in the world which will provide support for Micorosoft products.
Dude, when MS pull the plug on XP, the game is over. No company can spring up to plug the gap. That is the different.
It would hold water, except that the rest of the world made the transition without too much fuss. Imperial is better for song lyrics, sure, but for everything else, metric is superiour. The aesthetics of the imperial system give way to the creativity of a new generation, who are normalised the new terminology, in their own way.
Imperial measurements are better for song lyrics.
A c/c++ style macro compiler and #include system
Sadist.
D went the right route with that one. But if you want to write your own code structures, then Lisp/Scheme beats the macro compiler hands-down.
I hate to use appeals to authority, but how about the word of a clinical psychologist with 25 years of practice..
The naive should know something about antisocial personality disorder before someone screws them over just for the thrill of it.
They can't "authorized" illegal activity, and "following orders" is not a legal defense.
Unless it is illegal warrantless wiretapping, and you are a big telco.
whose behavior is a consequence of social or familial dysfunction
This is a common misconception. There is something genetic going on as well.
This isn't necessarily a bad thing, for the most part, just a case of different people with different personalities finding roles in society where their traits are assets rather than liabilities.
You have to be kidding. Bullying and walking over people is never an asset in a civilized society. Only about 2% of people are like that, and they cause almost all of the problems.
If we didn't have the problem of sociopaths and psychopaths (pigs might fly), then our political and business system would actually be ethical, since 98% of the population doesn't have much of a problem with being ethical.
Naw,
The Dept. of Defence should be renamed "Dept. of Peace"
The Dept. of Homeland Security should be renamed "Dept. of the Protection of the Constitution"
adding new things the government does FOR you without raising taxes to pay for them
.
I have a non-partisan point to make.
Reagan introduced one of the best laws regarding balancing the books. Every project had to prove funding before it was enacted. The proof of funding came from either raising taxes or showing cuts elsewhere. This law really helped the USA balance to books through the 90s.
Bush W. didn't like the rule, and let it lapse from the books before engaging in horrendous over-spending. (Not the non-partisan nature of this point. The Republicans introduced the solution and the Republicans subsequently removed it.)
For an example of adding new things the government does for you without raising taxes to pay for them: Medicare Part D. The cost of this program is set to eclipse the size of the US economy. It was very popular with the Republican voting base -- mainly older people.
I am all for small government, but let's make the debate less partisan, and more honest. The stronger the emotion, the more likely you are fooling yourself.
If only the sharp pencils in the Bush administration saved up money for bad times. Note that Bush fired (resigned) his own treasury secretary in 2002. Paul O'Neil became a harsh critic of Bush over his attitude toward money.
There is plenty of blame to go around for what happened. In his autobiography "Decision Points", Bush himself admits that he didn't make the best decisions. I respect that. The fact that Bush broke the books is history.
Cutting the budget in recession is almost universally acknowledged as bad by economists. Perhaps you are a genius who knows better. Publish your theory and collect a noble prize.
Somehow I think that pointing accusatory finger at others is a defence mechanism for how little you know.
Their growth will have to slow, pause, or reverse eventually and I doubt it will be nearly as dramatic as people think it will be.
These services affect old people, who generally get out and vote -- Republican. For all the Tea Party screaming, bet your bottom dollar that these 800lb gorilla institutions will be sustained until it is obvious that they are broken. Then there will be a dramatic regime change (just like Bush to Obama), and a whole lot of finger pointing after that fact.
They broke the law, proved their untrustworthiness and now are having to contend with that... it's called consequences.
I appreciate what you are saying. Without turning this into a black-and-white issue, consider the following points:
+ A reasonable proportion of people from disadvantaged minorities end up with wrongful convictions. For example, DNA testing showed that 15 of 205 death-row inmates were innocent.
+ There is such a thing as self-fulfilling prophecies. For example, if you go into a meeting expecting someone to be unreasonable, they more likely will be, and vice-versa. That is a measurable empirical fact of life. Our expectations of each other are powerful influences.
I would not advocate that convicted criminals should get a free pass. Obviously it is an imperfect world.
That searches made at the border
The point is, that the word border is being redefined to cover places where 66% of US citizens live. Basically this means that officials can seize the personal possessions of most Americans without any legal recourse at all.
Perhaps you believe that these officials can be trusted. Perhaps that is the case today. However, there is a reason why "malfeasance" is a word in the dictionary.
at least he's probably doing better than most professors in terms of being useful to humanity in general.
I agree with that. The future of wikipedia, or sites like it, could serve to be a summary of a particular issue, and a portal into the most relevant peer-reviewed articles. This is an excellent example, and does a much better job of summaries the debate than any of the peer reviewed "scientific" articles in the field.
The people who think that SQL sucks don't usually understand it.
My experience, is that the people who designed SQL didn't understand Relational Algebra, and made a mess of things. Too bad.
Relational algebra is far simpler than SQL for anything moderately complex. The theory and maths are well developed, but there are no implementations. SQL is loosely based on relational algebra, but the "lets-make-this-real-simple" mentality has had the reverse effect. Relational algebra is actually far easier to learn, and becomes expressive like a regular computer language.
You may be right, but his argument is not without merit. I have seen some SQL queries grow out of control, and they are quite difficult to understand. From a maintenance point of view, this is a disaster. SQL was created to make things simpler -- but like all "next-generation" technologies, it is only simpler for simple cases.
democrats offering up cuts.
Which media have you been watching?