Funny you should say that. "Liberals" seem to fight a hell of a lot more often and with more passion to protect the right to choice in virtually every situation, while the "conservatives" want more laws restricting what people can do.
Unions... school vouchers... yah, I think you're on something there... what is it, exactly? Mind sharing some with the rest of us?
The reality is that all politicians, by definition, think they are better than everybody else and know what is good for everybody else, and that means regulation, control, bureaucracy. Anyone who thinks one party has better plans for you than the others is nothing but a wannabe politician.
Let me paraphrase your attitude: The idea of letting individuals have any responsibility scares the piss out of you. You would rather bury your head in the sand by placing some ill-defined hope in yet another layer of bureaucratic inefficiency and corruption to reign in the already existing inefficient and corrupt layers or bureaucracy.
Here's a quick history refresher. When the civil war was won and slavery ended in 1865, it took 100 years more before blacks actually had any rights. It wasn't just corrupt police, it was corruption in all layers. Who watches the watchers? You want more watchers -- who watches them? What kind of police watchers can you think of who would have done any good in those 100 years?
LBJ didn't give a rat's ass when the KKK was killing and harassing and disenfranchising blacks using the power of the corrupt state and local governments to do so. It wasn't until a few KKK trash got killed by blacks that he suddenly cared.
You really need to read up on the Deacons for Defense. Yes, read about the Athens war too, that's pretty interesting, and is white on white in case you can't handle the black vs white of the Deacons. Get your head out of the sand (or wherever else you have hidden it) and learn some real history, not pablum for people who are afraid to think and have some responsibility.
While you're at it, go look up some crime statistics. I won't provide links because you need to take the responsibility of doing your own research. Learn, for instance, that conceal carry permittees have a lower crime rate than off duty police.
As deplorable as their 2000 political intrusion was, Gore handed the case to them on a silver platter by only demanding a recount in the precincts where he was behind due to Florida stupidity. If he had thought about it for a few seconds, he would have realized he was opening himself up for an equal protection lawsuit.
Read up on the Deacons for Defense, armed blacks, mostly WW II and Korean War veterans, who used their right to keep and bear arms to stare down corrupt state and local governments which were run by the KKK.
This was 40 years ago.
Now tell me how much more enlightened we are today and tell me how unnecessary the 2nd amendment is.
Re:It's obvious and you missed it
on
Terminal Chaos
·
· Score: 1
aint that what this book is all about?
Precisely. I was responding to someone who missed it, and it bears repeating. Politicians aren't interested in solving problems, only in offering non-solutions to steal thunder and prevent anyone else from either getting credit or assigning blame to them.
It's obvious and you missed it
on
Terminal Chaos
·
· Score: 1
It's broken because no one owns it and has ultimate responsibility.
No one wants to stick their neck out to push the others into fixing it because they'd get blamed for every little thing that went wrong.
No one wants the others to fix it because they don't want the others to get credit.
It's the tragedy of the commons.
It's the same problem with schools: teachers unions and school boards don't want to take the blame and don't want the other to get credit, so neither makes any move for fear of being blamed and each jumps on the other negatively to prevent the other getting any credit.
I for one welcome our slow moving, slime generating, information overlords. Information underloads if anything.
Re:Enterprise technologies
on
Real Snail Mail
·
· Score: 3, Funny
This is great news! As the CIO of a well known Fortune 500 company, I can envision some innovative global solutions built on this compelling technology. I can envision your Fortune 500 company soon transitioning to the Fortune 500,000.
Looks not quite what they say
on
Real Snail Mail
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Most everything seems to imply that the snails actually carry the message, but the fact that the snails carry RFID chips, and that one of the developers actually says the messages are tagged when a snail wanders nearby, makes me think that the actual message does indeed travel electronically only, and all the snail does is induce an artificial (albeit organic and biodegradeable) delay.
I have a Mosin, also a Steyr 8x56R, and Garands sure make a mess of them. Got a cheap.308, ought to try that. I wonder if the newer drives, which I understand have glass platters, would shatter when hit, and whether.22LR would do the trick on them.
They aren't worth jack except to you as playthings. You can't build up any worthwhile box to hold them, being IDE.
I take off the circuit boards and shoot them, then pick up the pieces for the trash. Got a half dozen waiting to be "wiped" as soon as I get around to it.
...turning on its head the argument that ethanol production consumes more energy than it produces. Only David Pimental believes that, and he's in the pay of the oil companies. I suspect it just might be right if "consumes energy" doesn't count sunlight, which is more or less free.
Since BMW serve as little more than penis extensions and the owners expect them to be chick magnets, it stands to reason that the drivers would rather pick up anyone rather than be seen driving alone, as that would indicate that the alleged chick magnet has failed, meaning their own rationale for buying the BMW was suspect, and that they themselves had committed a lot of money to a worthless cause and were fools of the highest order.
In other words, a BMW owner would rather die than drive home from bars empty handed, so there will be two pricks inside.
Here's an example. Remember, I had never used Visual Studio before, and hadn't used Windows in probably ten years. This was 1999 or 2000. Remember also that details are hazy now.
I discovered by accident that if you brought up help on something, there were sometimes links to click which added stub code to a source file. Then you would edit that source file to add the filling.
Now I don't like lots of windows open, so I wanted to get rid of these source windows when I had added the filler, but there was no File->save that I could see, so I clicked the X in the corner, answered Yes when it asked if I wanted to save it.
If, a few minutes later, I added another stub to that same source file, it complained that an outside program had modified that source file, and wanted me to confirm that it should reread it.
This struck me as mighty peculiar. That external program was either itself adding the stub or me using its own editor to edit it. I was not using any external program that wasn't invoked by Visual Studio.
Once those two hours were up, I had zero interest in trying to figure out the bug. I figure most likely it's just not the VS way of doing things, and MS softwware never has been famous for its flexibility or tolerance of different ways of doing things. Microsoft's philosophy seems to be "my way or the highway", so I will do it MY way, which is linux and tons of customization.
Nothing. I haven't worked on Windows for the last 20 years except one two hour horrifying stint once, where I discovered several stupid bugs in Visual Studio where I didn't apparently conform to the WallyWorld work usage, and no one at WallyWorld had ever imagined someone might one to do things a different way.
When I (have to) use Subversion, and need the equivalent of a branch, I just cp -a my checked out trunk and switch between the copies. They aren't really branches, but they are close enough most of the time as long as it's just me working on them. They do no good for letting other people access my "branch". I really detest Subversion branches.
You create a branch at rev 1000. At rev 2000, months later, you want to update the branch with all changes that have been applied to the trunk since the branch was made or last updated. So you merge in 1001...2000.
Now, again months later, you are at rev 3000 on the trunk and again want to update the branch with all changes to the trunk that are not in the branch, ie, revs 2001...3000. Subversion ought to remember that this branch was brought up to rev 2000 changes, but it doesn't. Since I no longer use subversion branches because of this nonsense, I cannot tell you now whether it merges in since 1 or from the branch start (1000) but I do know that it doesn't know squat about rev 2000, and it ought to. You have to manually tell it to only merge from 2001 up, not 1 or 1000.
If you screw it up, some revs get merged twice or not at all. Suppose you tell it to merge from 2002 on up -- the changes from rev 2001 will not be applied. Or tell it 2000 and it will merge that rev twice.
Slashdot Mirror
Funny you should say that. "Liberals" seem to fight a hell of a lot more often and with more passion to protect the right to choice in virtually every situation, while the "conservatives" want more laws restricting what people can do.
Unions ... school vouchers ... yah, I think you're on something there ... what is it, exactly? Mind sharing some with the rest of us?
The reality is that all politicians, by definition, think they are better than everybody else and know what is good for everybody else, and that means regulation, control, bureaucracy. Anyone who thinks one party has better plans for you than the others is nothing but a wannabe politician.
My network is still on the fence when it comes to the existence of God.
Are there turtles on the fenceposts?
Underneath, yes; it's turtles all the way down.
Let me paraphrase your attitude: The idea of letting individuals have any responsibility scares the piss out of you. You would rather bury your head in the sand by placing some ill-defined hope in yet another layer of bureaucratic inefficiency and corruption to reign in the already existing inefficient and corrupt layers or bureaucracy.
Here's a quick history refresher. When the civil war was won and slavery ended in 1865, it took 100 years more before blacks actually had any rights. It wasn't just corrupt police, it was corruption in all layers. Who watches the watchers? You want more watchers -- who watches them? What kind of police watchers can you think of who would have done any good in those 100 years?
LBJ didn't give a rat's ass when the KKK was killing and harassing and disenfranchising blacks using the power of the corrupt state and local governments to do so. It wasn't until a few KKK trash got killed by blacks that he suddenly cared.
You really need to read up on the Deacons for Defense. Yes, read about the Athens war too, that's pretty interesting, and is white on white in case you can't handle the black vs white of the Deacons. Get your head out of the sand (or wherever else you have hidden it) and learn some real history, not pablum for people who are afraid to think and have some responsibility.
While you're at it, go look up some crime statistics. I won't provide links because you need to take the responsibility of doing your own research. Learn, for instance, that conceal carry permittees have a lower crime rate than off duty police.
As deplorable as their 2000 political intrusion was, Gore handed the case to them on a silver platter by only demanding a recount in the precincts where he was behind due to Florida stupidity. If he had thought about it for a few seconds, he would have realized he was opening himself up for an equal protection lawsuit.
Read up on the Deacons for Defense, armed blacks, mostly WW II and Korean War veterans, who used their right to keep and bear arms to stare down corrupt state and local governments which were run by the KKK.
This was 40 years ago.
Now tell me how much more enlightened we are today and tell me how unnecessary the 2nd amendment is.
aint that what this book is all about?
Precisely. I was responding to someone who missed it, and it bears repeating. Politicians aren't interested in solving problems, only in offering non-solutions to steal thunder and prevent anyone else from either getting credit or assigning blame to them.It's broken because no one owns it and has ultimate responsibility.
No one wants to stick their neck out to push the others into fixing it because they'd get blamed for every little thing that went wrong.
No one wants the others to fix it because they don't want the others to get credit.
It's the tragedy of the commons.
It's the same problem with schools: teachers unions and school boards don't want to take the blame and don't want the other to get credit, so neither makes any move for fear of being blamed and each jumps on the other negatively to prevent the other getting any credit.
Most everything seems to imply that the snails actually carry the message, but the fact that the snails carry RFID chips, and that one of the developers actually says the messages are tagged when a snail wanders nearby, makes me think that the actual message does indeed travel electronically only, and all the snail does is induce an artificial (albeit organic and biodegradeable) delay.
I have a Mosin, also a Steyr 8x56R, and Garands sure make a mess of them. Got a cheap .308, ought to try that. I wonder if the newer drives, which I understand have glass platters, would shatter when hit, and whether .22LR would do the trick on them.
They aren't worth jack except to you as playthings. You can't build up any worthwhile box to hold them, being IDE.
I take off the circuit boards and shoot them, then pick up the pieces for the trash. Got a half dozen waiting to be "wiped" as soon as I get around to it.
I guess I am guilty of sherpaism.
My hat's off to you, good sir.
Only David Pimental believes that, and he's in the pay of the oil companies. I suspect it just might be right if "consumes energy" doesn't count sunlight, which is more or less free.
Mt Everest is even colder and people climb that too.
But not to and from work.
Since BMW serve as little more than penis extensions and the owners expect them to be chick magnets, it stands to reason that the drivers would rather pick up anyone rather than be seen driving alone, as that would indicate that the alleged chick magnet has failed, meaning their own rationale for buying the BMW was suspect, and that they themselves had committed a lot of money to a worthless cause and were fools of the highest order.
In other words, a BMW owner would rather die than drive home from bars empty handed, so there will be two pricks inside.
What's the difference between a porcupine and a BMW?
The porcupine has its pricks on the outside.
Where have YOU been? He does so take part once in a while.
Here's a hint for dumb-ass moderators on crack: This book should have been called Zen and the Art of Xen.
And no error correction or backup.
"Newbie"? You calling someone "newbie"?!? That's rich.
(Let's see if we can get Taco to come in here eventually.)
Here's an example. Remember, I had never used Visual Studio before, and hadn't used Windows in probably ten years. This was 1999 or 2000. Remember also that details are hazy now.
I discovered by accident that if you brought up help on something, there were sometimes links to click which added stub code to a source file. Then you would edit that source file to add the filling.
Now I don't like lots of windows open, so I wanted to get rid of these source windows when I had added the filler, but there was no File->save that I could see, so I clicked the X in the corner, answered Yes when it asked if I wanted to save it.
If, a few minutes later, I added another stub to that same source file, it complained that an outside program had modified that source file, and wanted me to confirm that it should reread it.
This struck me as mighty peculiar. That external program was either itself adding the stub or me using its own editor to edit it. I was not using any external program that wasn't invoked by Visual Studio.
Once those two hours were up, I had zero interest in trying to figure out the bug. I figure most likely it's just not the VS way of doing things, and MS softwware never has been famous for its flexibility or tolerance of different ways of doing things. Microsoft's philosophy seems to be "my way or the highway", so I will do it MY way, which is linux and tons of customization.
Nothing. I haven't worked on Windows for the last 20 years except one two hour horrifying stint once, where I discovered several stupid bugs in Visual Studio where I didn't apparently conform to the WallyWorld work usage, and no one at WallyWorld had ever imagined someone might one to do things a different way.
When I (have to) use Subversion, and need the equivalent of a branch, I just cp -a my checked out trunk and switch between the copies. They aren't really branches, but they are close enough most of the time as long as it's just me working on them. They do no good for letting other people access my "branch". I really detest Subversion branches.
You create a branch at rev 1000. At rev 2000, months later, you want to update the branch with all changes that have been applied to the trunk since the branch was made or last updated. So you merge in 1001...2000.
Now, again months later, you are at rev 3000 on the trunk and again want to update the branch with all changes to the trunk that are not in the branch, ie, revs 2001...3000. Subversion ought to remember that this branch was brought up to rev 2000 changes, but it doesn't. Since I no longer use subversion branches because of this nonsense, I cannot tell you now whether it merges in since 1 or from the branch start (1000) but I do know that it doesn't know squat about rev 2000, and it ought to. You have to manually tell it to only merge from 2001 up, not 1 or 1000.
If you screw it up, some revs get merged twice or not at all. Suppose you tell it to merge from 2002 on up -- the changes from rev 2001 will not be applied. Or tell it 2000 and it will merge that rev twice.