Yes its true that C/C++ is generally faster than other languages, but when it comes to writing bug proof code, its not so good.
No, you mean YOU aren't so good. A good c programmer won't produce any more bugs than a good any-other-language programmer; we know how to handle memory, multi-threading, and those other issues that terrify those who have only worked with languages with training wheels permanently attached.
I haven't used Apple's new compiler, but under Leopard (10.5), using GCC, the actual machine code that is produced for objective c is *awful*. Constantly re-using the same registers, putting them away, bringing them back... it's as if the compiler uses a one-type-of-each-register model. Speaking as an assembly programmer, for any particular procedure that I looked at, I could have *trivially* whipped GCC's ass back into the stone age for execution efficiency.
Apple says the new compiler produces better code, and all I have to say at this point is that shouldn't have been difficult to do, because obj-c -> gcc sucks ass.
We have enough engineers. Programmers, too. Really good ones.
The problem is that US companies tend not to hire (or retain) them if they aren't entry level; they'll outsource or hire fresh-from-the-classroom types in order to keep costs down, because the US corporate outlook rarely goes further than the upcoming quarterly report. If they can outsource the majority of the process, they will. For instance, (just one example of many) Apple manufactures in China. That's a *lot* of engineering jobs, tech jobs, assembly jobs, procurement jobs, etc. Looking at it one way, they have to -- because otherwise they wouldn't be competitive. But if anything sold here had to be made here, then the playing field is level again.
Older engineers cost too much: Healthcare, experience, it all comes together for a higher cost, and no one wants that on the quarterly report. Younger types, speaking generally, can't cut the tough jobs, though, and that's why we have very little high end engineering and programming capacity in use within our borders. And a rush of newly minted engineers and/or programmers won't help -- we'll just get more half-baked ideas like Apple's recent "full screen feature", basically an idiotic and functionally bereft return to the modal operations of 25 years ago. (Apple user here, see things through Apple flavored eyes.)
I think we need a period where products sold in the USA have to be 100% made in the USA, from the first stroke of the pen to the last decal on the front panel. Otherwise, this illusory period of "production" of IP will collapse with the illusion of protection our IP laws are (just barely) shoring up; other countries don't give the south end of a northbound rat for our IP laws. By pulling the entire product process within our borders, we create a level playing field for our manufacturing economy to restart. Then we could see the large, competent pool of engineers and programmers we already *have* rehired.
And we have to make damn sure that unions don't get a toehold again; they were another large factor in destroying our manufacturing economy: If the worker is not being paid enough, then they need to up their skill set and change their worth, either at their current job or at a new job. Instead of trying to blackmail their employer. The economy and cost of living changes; consequently the worker needs to change too. Their job doesn't magically become worth more because bread costs more. If they don't change, that's not the employer's fault.
As far as I know, not many people use remote control "clickers" to just power their television sets on or off.
I do. My "TV" is a projector, basically an HDMI monitor, and all it does is what the main stereo system tells it to. I power it up before I watch visual media, and power it down when done, remotely. No other settings or changes are required for the display hardware -- the "TV."
It's not your looks. It's your wallet and how you manage it, I assure you. Speaking as someone who is not particularly good looking, but knows how to spend.
Guy A in average bar: "Can I buy you a drink?" Odds of going the distance in a fabulous way: low.
Buy B in non-meat market (grocery store, charity event, convention, etc.) Same odds: decent
Guy C in upscale environment (never a bar, sorry): "Would you like to fly to Paris with me this weekend? I'd love to take you shopping along Saint-Honoré and treat you at Alain Ducasse au Plaza Athénée" Same odds: excellent
That statement is hugely incorrect; profitability depends on the level that the prostitute works at. You speak as someone completely unfamiliar with prostitution does (and strangely enough, that's usually where these types of unilateral statements come from, imagine that.)
she has to resort to it because she does not come from a good enough background to have the tools to put a decent life together on her own merits
What are the "merits" in this context? For a sex worker, looks, intuition, fashion sense, and athleticism (definitely a plus) are all perfectly valid merits (and there are others as well) in the context of the job. Just as looks are for a model or an actor; athleticism for a football player or a martial artist; fashion sense for a clothes designer or a news anchor. As far as background goes, I've spent quality time with escorts that have backgrounds most people can't afford to seriously consider as life goals. Fluent in multiple languages, college degrees, well traveled, expert conversationalists and superb companions, and of course, highly sophisticated in matters sexual.
I bet you good money that the average poster around here couldn't pass the finals of an advanced high school algebra course, write Hello World in two languages and/or hold an intelligent discussion on Newtonian physics.
And in return, I'd bet you good money that's a completely ineffective screen for "smart."
I feel a profound sense of pity for that person. To me, that choice of passwords suggests an unhealthy attachment to pornography.
I feel a profound sense of pity for you, as your post suggests you think an interest in media depicting the rich breadth of sexuality as entertainment and adjunct is unhealthy. But I forgive you, because I presume you were brought up in a social and/or religious environment that has profoundly crippled your sexual nature, as well as skewing your sense of perspective such that you incorrectly think you can infer anything significant about people you don't know, from a password.
you make the same complaint that many others do that isn't fair to major media. I've watched CNN and CNBC and MSNBC and have seen their coverage of the deaths in Mexico. CNBC even did an entire hour on the drug deaths in Mexico and how it relates to the USA.
Ok, let me ask you this: Did CNN, CNBC, or MSNBC lay the responsibility for those deaths where it actually belongs, which is directly at the feet of prohibition, and therefore the Mexican and US legal systems and the corrupt politicians that have turned the free consensual choice of citizens into a money- and power-generating machine for government?
I mean, sure, they cover the deaths in Mexico (and elsewhere), and they use it to enhance the "OMG drugzesez!!!111!!!" message they've been tasked with beating the sheep over the head with, but do they actually deal with the problem, our out-of-control, unauthorized, anti-liberty, anti-freedom, power-mad government?
On the net, you can find this information. presented clearly and cleanly, showing cause and effect, complete with example (1920's liquor prohibition, for instance), facts and figures about how much money goes to federal, state and local power centers, comparisons to deaths and violence and imprisonment in legal drug manufacturing and sales regimes (coffee, tea, aspirin, alcohol, red bull)... in other words, the clean proof that the root cause of the violence and harm of the war against manufacturing and selling drugs is entirely the responsibility of the government and no one else. As for the use of them, that's entirely on the head of the user, or their parent or guardian.
You can find it in innumerable little blogs, and you can find it in big ones, like Reason. You can even find it in fringe print periodicals like Rolling Stone. But you won't find it in the New York Times, or any other MSM outlet. Because they are inherently corrupt and they are complicit, having pushed the illusion as servile lackeys of our government since day one of the drug war.
...high number of deaths in Mexico due to the drug cartels and even the murder of innocent civilians to maintain their control
Arghh. This is exactly what I've been talking about. This is surface action; deception at its mediocre norm. A more honest and to the point formulation (one of many) would be "...high number of deaths in Mexico due to government prohibition and even the murder of innocent civilians to control the market government prohibition created and maintains for them"
I don't see any way to fix it unless viewers change or we demand that PBS cover it more.
That's not the problem. The problem is that news media is corporate, and corporate interests are what they serve. Break that connection, and you'd have something worthwhile. Likewise, break the connection between corporate interests and lawmaking, and you'd have something.
I explicitly mentioned the Bell corruption case, as exposed by the LA Times. It's disingenuous of you to ignore that and talk about Weiner instead.
Come on. The Bell corruption case isn't even on any serious person's radar. Small town officials overpaying themselves? How is this even news outside said small town? Those idiots were just incompetent; most small towns do this with contracts, real estate price fixing, zoning grants, quiet, record-free under the table work, altogether via considerably less obvious means, and in the end (a) it's just as corrupt and (b) it's not significant WRT to the system... it's top level stuff that when VERY rarely addressed, doesn't help fix the nation -- which is what I'm talking about here. Small town politics are thoroughly corrupt. It just doesn't matter because everything else is, too, and no one will address -- some won't even admit -- the larger issues.
Taking the Bell case to media venues outside the town is like taking the arrest of some guy who stole your car to media outside the town. It's ridiculous, and has merit only as a distraction elsewhere, because it isn't relevant in any way. The only thing that's actually notable about it is how incompetent those people were; that's not how it's usually done, and this is exactly why: they were certain to be caught eventually. Whereas if Joe, working silently on Larry's behalf, sells Fred some land or a house for $10k more, or a 2nd hand boat for $1k less, it's absolutely untraceable and can't be laid at anyone's feet. Ever. "It's what I thought it was worth.. [shrug]" If the contract for the landfill goes to this person instead of that, hey, who's to say how that happened? When the wife of Someone Significant in the town runs into a telephone pole and "somehow" she gets to the hospital, isn't charged, while Joe Average gets his blood alcohol tested right there at the scene, gee, how could that happen? And then things seem to seriously fall the way of the local cop. Completely unexpected, right? This is the usual scope of small town corruption. Most officials aren't as stupid as the Bell people were -- not pulled from the left side of the Gaussian -- that's all; but again, none of it is even slightly relevant outside the venues affected.
The point is that political corruption is covered
No, it isn't. The MSM doesn't even talk about it. You're being massively disingenuous here. What you're trying to call political corruption is so minor, so inconsequential in the scheme of things, that it doesn't even rise to a value where it would deserve a page -- any page -- in any serious media outlet outside the small town it occurred in. The system is corrupt; that's what no one will talk about.
you're just backpedaling and moving the goalposts.
No. I'm talking about the big issues, the issues that are destroying the country, the issues that erode our liberties, that have pushed our economy to the brink, killed huge numbers of our soldiers to absolutely no purpose and driven our manufacturing capacity into irrelevance. You can mutter all you want about some small townies getting caught with their hand in the till, but that's just bread and circuses. Those clowns are of zero consequence, and removing them from the system doesn't improve it because those problems are at the leaves, not at the roots.
All you have to do is look at the court cases that occur on any given day. Are you seriously going to claim that ordinary citizens are not getting justice at any level?
Absolutely. Have you looked at the financial barriers to entry for a solid legal representation? You think Joe and Jane average citizen can get in there and pony up six or seven figures -- or more -- to fight Corporation X? In your dreams, again. Last summer, I had need of a local attorney, and you know what the fees were for the c
You clearly have absolutely no idea how difficult it is to do everything in your life and then somehow, magically be able to monitor your children's activity 24/7. It's logistically impossible; your parents certainly didn't do it.
I'm 55. My parents didn't need to do it. They let me wander, swim, canoe and boat the Delaware, explore caves, and much more. They educated me lovingly but remorselessly (there's no other term for it), and taught me to deal with the various things I faced. There was no Internet; and they outright forbid television based on their evaluation of the content, a gift for which I thank them most profoundly to this day. I built my first computer out of TTL logic based around a couple of 74181 ALUs, and have maintained an active interest since then, moving up through 8008, 6800, 6809, and so on. I have a wide variety of active interests, do lots of charity and PD work, am happy and am very, very successful in the business sense. My siblings have had similar experiences. So I think my parents did just fine with their choices.
I, on the other hand, have had to bring up kids with the Internet around, and what I did was use a whitelist and hang with them as we expanded the whitelist. So I didn't have to be there all the time; I only needed to be there as the limits expanded. Often, they'd ask me to add a particular site, and I'd look, and almost always do so -- or sit with them a while if I thought the expansion needed a guide. Today, this is so easy to do it's almost pitiful. OSX has it built right in; I'd be pretty surprised if Windows didn't as well. And linux has had squid forever. But in any case, a few minutes learning how to manage squid or something similar, and there is no problem in your home. Now, managing things outside your home is something else, and all that takes is spending a few minutes with the other parents and asking them about their Internet habits, then educating them if they seem to not know how to manage things. You also need to prepare your kids for unmonitored meets, where you have no control, because I bloody well guarantee you they're going to happen, and in large numbers. You won't do that by handing off what web sites they can see to Google or any other third party. It's your job. No one elses.
I have no sympathy for people who bleat about how difficult it all is. You chose to have kids; so man the fuck up and handle the job. If you don't know how, ask. You could even use.... the Internet!
That's why there are rules on what can be on TV and radio stations at various hours and so on,
No, the reason for that is so that the incompetent don't have to parent, so that politicians can grandstand ("protect the children", lol) and most particularly, so that the superstitious can maintain their power base, which is founded in large part upon restricting sexual knowledge and behaviors. I am pleased to note that those days are ending. Kids today know more about sex than their parents do, and indulge in superstitious behaviors far less, generally speaking, and we're considerably better off because of it. We're still suffering in the aftermath of some insane political behavior restricting all manner of things to/from/with teens, but I expect that will end too as the superstitious era draws to a close -- and of course the teens pay little or no attention anyway.
Nonsense. Political corruption is the bread and butter of media because it sells.
I'm not talking about the idiot pap about Weiner, et al. I'm talking about the corruption of the entire system; the two party lock-in, the choice of the citizens being reduced to choosing between a shit biscuit or a shit mcmuffin, no other choices, period. I'm talking about the subversion of the constitution. I'm talking about the complete ownership of congress, on every level, by corporate and moneyed interests. Of course the media publish stupidity about politician's sex lives. It keeps them from having to publish anything of substance. It keeps the masses entertained; make no mistake, they're good at what they do.
[the legal system is] not all doom and gloom as you make it out to be.
Yes, it really is. The legal system is massively corrupt at the foundation, and this is reflected at every level thereafter. The fact that you don't see it just indicates you're poorly informed. You've been led to the water. You have but to drink.
your concerns have no future, since you have no kids
I have no biological kids. I do indeed think breeding is an error at this point in time. I have raised several, however. I have also been teaching and mentoring for decades; consequently my concerns and opinions are well distributed among younger members of society, and to the extent they have merit, are likely to continue to propagate. The fact that my genes aren't "moving forward" is of absolutely no consequence to me.
However, my attention isn't really on the distant future. It's on there here and now, and on the years coming that I expect to experience. I will be affected by the coming generations to one degree or another, and therefore, I consider them to be of perfectly legitimate interest to me.
the brutal reality of the situation is that without the breeders you obviously have contempt for, there is no future.
Nonsense on both counts. I have contempt for people who breed thoughtlessly and poorly; but the future is a matter of physics, not the unfortunate close resemblance of our current society's breeding habits to the first few minutes of the film Idiocracy. If the future contains fewer unwanted and poorly raised children, I doubt that our society will end. The problem is really the other way: We're breeding socially crippled (and often unwanted) people, educating them poorly, and then setting them loose to do it all over again.
in modern american society, where parents are expected to work two jobs just to keep from losing the house, outsourcing some of that internet filtering effort is a perfectly valid request.
I disagree strongly. This is pivotal to bringing up your kids. Handing it off to a third party will simply ensure that they are cookie-cuttered instead of raised as unique, thinking individuals.
for all of your vaunted ideals and high complex abstract thoughts, you are nothing more than a crude biological vessel, and you have an expiration date. and you should give some thought as to your replacement
cts, I teach, I mentor, and I've raised several kids. I have never handed off my parental responsibilities to others without oversight. Selected results of this is include that my kids are completely free of superstition, understand the constitution as a document written to limit the government and written for the common man, and they're perfectly supportive of your gay and etc. friendly views. I could go on for quite a while; I've been very successful on many levels in this particular area. I'm very pleased with everyone, and tend to lean pretty hard towards "nurture" ideas as a result.
On top of which I blog and post somewhat prolifically, countering what I consider to be problem viewpoints and social errors as I encounter them. I've also written some books. All in all, I am quite certain that my views will have significant ripple effects. So thanks for your concerns, but they are groundless.
So if there was a quality newspaper in your jurisdiction doing hard reporting and research
I'm 55. I'm also a voracious reader. I've read many, many US newspapers, certainly all the really big ones -- and I've never seen such a thing. What I see are papers that won't address the real issues, papers that kowtow to the superstitious, papers that throw up "the other side" even when there's absolutely no facts on the ground supporting the other side, etc.
Newspapers have a conflict of interest: They have to make money; and in order to make money, they have to leave a very large number of readers content with what they've read. So they can't honestly address political corruption, unjust wars, affronts to liberty, superstition, the fact that the legal system has devolved to corporate and moneyed-group serving process, and no longer even pretends to implement justice for the citizens at any level... I could go on, but the point is made: newspapers are pap-filled rags written for the lowest common denominator in their audience.
A blogger doesn't have to be dependent upon how many people read. zero, one or a thousand, it's all the same. So they can -- and do -- say whatever they think. Then we, as netizens, simply find the ones that are thinking clearly. The difference is that there are actually things worth reading on the net. In newspapers... not so much. I can point you to quite a few blogs where the reading is interesting, informative, pertinent, and well thought out, and few, if any, subjects are "off the table." I can't point you to even one newspaper where the same is true.
This puts Google in the position of being mommy and daddy. What I consider "inappropriate" is unlikely to be the same as the next parent; what this suggests, though, is that everyone gets to deal with what Google decides, and frankly... that's not an appropriate role for a third party. That's the parent's job. If you don't have time for guiding your kids, and you can't seem to come up with rules and behaviors, or use a white-list facility competently, then perhaps you shouldn't be spawning anyway, rather than begging for a third party to do your job for you.
Slashdot Mirror
No, you mean YOU aren't so good. A good c programmer won't produce any more bugs than a good any-other-language programmer; we know how to handle memory, multi-threading, and those other issues that terrify those who have only worked with languages with training wheels permanently attached.
I haven't used Apple's new compiler, but under Leopard (10.5), using GCC, the actual machine code that is produced for objective c is *awful*. Constantly re-using the same registers, putting them away, bringing them back... it's as if the compiler uses a one-type-of-each-register model. Speaking as an assembly programmer, for any particular procedure that I looked at, I could have *trivially* whipped GCC's ass back into the stone age for execution efficiency.
Apple says the new compiler produces better code, and all I have to say at this point is that shouldn't have been difficult to do, because obj-c -> gcc sucks ass.
We have enough engineers. Programmers, too. Really good ones.
The problem is that US companies tend not to hire (or retain) them if they aren't entry level; they'll outsource or hire fresh-from-the-classroom types in order to keep costs down, because the US corporate outlook rarely goes further than the upcoming quarterly report. If they can outsource the majority of the process, they will. For instance, (just one example of many) Apple manufactures in China. That's a *lot* of engineering jobs, tech jobs, assembly jobs, procurement jobs, etc. Looking at it one way, they have to -- because otherwise they wouldn't be competitive. But if anything sold here had to be made here, then the playing field is level again.
Older engineers cost too much: Healthcare, experience, it all comes together for a higher cost, and no one wants that on the quarterly report. Younger types, speaking generally, can't cut the tough jobs, though, and that's why we have very little high end engineering and programming capacity in use within our borders. And a rush of newly minted engineers and/or programmers won't help -- we'll just get more half-baked ideas like Apple's recent "full screen feature", basically an idiotic and functionally bereft return to the modal operations of 25 years ago. (Apple user here, see things through Apple flavored eyes.)
I think we need a period where products sold in the USA have to be 100% made in the USA, from the first stroke of the pen to the last decal on the front panel. Otherwise, this illusory period of "production" of IP will collapse with the illusion of protection our IP laws are (just barely) shoring up; other countries don't give the south end of a northbound rat for our IP laws. By pulling the entire product process within our borders, we create a level playing field for our manufacturing economy to restart. Then we could see the large, competent pool of engineers and programmers we already *have* rehired.
And we have to make damn sure that unions don't get a toehold again; they were another large factor in destroying our manufacturing economy: If the worker is not being paid enough, then they need to up their skill set and change their worth, either at their current job or at a new job. Instead of trying to blackmail their employer. The economy and cost of living changes; consequently the worker needs to change too. Their job doesn't magically become worth more because bread costs more. If they don't change, that's not the employer's fault.
I do. My "TV" is a projector, basically an HDMI monitor, and all it does is what the main stereo system tells it to. I power it up before I watch visual media, and power it down when done, remotely. No other settings or changes are required for the display hardware -- the "TV."
Just for you
Those blinders look really good on you. Stylish. Culturally accepted. The norm.
Well again, then, you're inferring a great deal from a very, very small bit of information, aren't you?
Nah, it mostly has to do with the fear most men have of not being able to get as "deeply seated" as the next or previous guy.
Well, that, and the powerbase the religio-politico types have built by making sexuality forbidden territory.
It's not your looks. It's your wallet and how you manage it, I assure you. Speaking as someone who is not particularly good looking, but knows how to spend.
Guy A in average bar: "Can I buy you a drink?" Odds of going the distance in a fabulous way: low.
Buy B in non-meat market (grocery store, charity event, convention, etc.) Same odds: decent
Guy C in upscale environment (never a bar, sorry): "Would you like to fly to Paris with me this weekend? I'd love to take you shopping along Saint-Honoré and treat you at Alain Ducasse au Plaza Athénée" Same odds: excellent
Well, at least it is clear he has not partaken of the marriage koolaid, for which unusually perceptive act, I salute him. :^)
That statement is hugely incorrect; profitability depends on the level that the prostitute works at. You speak as someone completely unfamiliar with prostitution does (and strangely enough, that's usually where these types of unilateral statements come from, imagine that.)
What are the "merits" in this context? For a sex worker, looks, intuition, fashion sense, and athleticism (definitely a plus) are all perfectly valid merits (and there are others as well) in the context of the job. Just as looks are for a model or an actor; athleticism for a football player or a martial artist; fashion sense for a clothes designer or a news anchor. As far as background goes, I've spent quality time with escorts that have backgrounds most people can't afford to seriously consider as life goals. Fluent in multiple languages, college degrees, well traveled, expert conversationalists and superb companions, and of course, highly sophisticated in matters sexual.
And in return, I'd bet you good money that's a completely ineffective screen for "smart."
Sadly, you've understated the problem. :(
I would like to congratulate you on the very first technically correct use of the term "frigging" I have encountered on the Internet. Kudos, sir.
I feel a profound sense of pity for you, as your post suggests you think an interest in media depicting the rich breadth of sexuality as entertainment and adjunct is unhealthy. But I forgive you, because I presume you were brought up in a social and/or religious environment that has profoundly crippled your sexual nature, as well as skewing your sense of perspective such that you incorrectly think you can infer anything significant about people you don't know, from a password.
Ok, let me ask you this: Did CNN, CNBC, or MSNBC lay the responsibility for those deaths where it actually belongs, which is directly at the feet of prohibition, and therefore the Mexican and US legal systems and the corrupt politicians that have turned the free consensual choice of citizens into a money- and power-generating machine for government?
I mean, sure, they cover the deaths in Mexico (and elsewhere), and they use it to enhance the "OMG drugzesez!!!111!!!" message they've been tasked with beating the sheep over the head with, but do they actually deal with the problem, our out-of-control, unauthorized, anti-liberty, anti-freedom, power-mad government?
On the net, you can find this information. presented clearly and cleanly, showing cause and effect, complete with example (1920's liquor prohibition, for instance), facts and figures about how much money goes to federal, state and local power centers, comparisons to deaths and violence and imprisonment in legal drug manufacturing and sales regimes (coffee, tea, aspirin, alcohol, red bull)... in other words, the clean proof that the root cause of the violence and harm of the war against manufacturing and selling drugs is entirely the responsibility of the government and no one else. As for the use of them, that's entirely on the head of the user, or their parent or guardian.
You can find it in innumerable little blogs, and you can find it in big ones, like Reason. You can even find it in fringe print periodicals like Rolling Stone. But you won't find it in the New York Times, or any other MSM outlet. Because they are inherently corrupt and they are complicit, having pushed the illusion as servile lackeys of our government since day one of the drug war.
Arghh. This is exactly what I've been talking about. This is surface action; deception at its mediocre norm. A more honest and to the point formulation (one of many) would be "...high number of deaths in Mexico due to government prohibition and even the murder of innocent civilians to control the market government prohibition created and maintains for them"
That's not the problem. The problem is that news media is corporate, and corporate interests are what they serve. Break that connection, and you'd have something worthwhile. Likewise, break the connection between corporate interests and lawmaking, and you'd have something.
Both are nearly insurmountable problems.
Come on. The Bell corruption case isn't even on any serious person's radar. Small town officials overpaying themselves? How is this even news outside said small town? Those idiots were just incompetent; most small towns do this with contracts, real estate price fixing, zoning grants, quiet, record-free under the table work, altogether via considerably less obvious means, and in the end (a) it's just as corrupt and (b) it's not significant WRT to the system... it's top level stuff that when VERY rarely addressed, doesn't help fix the nation -- which is what I'm talking about here. Small town politics are thoroughly corrupt. It just doesn't matter because everything else is, too, and no one will address -- some won't even admit -- the larger issues.
Taking the Bell case to media venues outside the town is like taking the arrest of some guy who stole your car to media outside the town. It's ridiculous, and has merit only as a distraction elsewhere, because it isn't relevant in any way. The only thing that's actually notable about it is how incompetent those people were; that's not how it's usually done, and this is exactly why: they were certain to be caught eventually. Whereas if Joe, working silently on Larry's behalf, sells Fred some land or a house for $10k more, or a 2nd hand boat for $1k less, it's absolutely untraceable and can't be laid at anyone's feet. Ever. "It's what I thought it was worth.. [shrug]" If the contract for the landfill goes to this person instead of that, hey, who's to say how that happened? When the wife of Someone Significant in the town runs into a telephone pole and "somehow" she gets to the hospital, isn't charged, while Joe Average gets his blood alcohol tested right there at the scene, gee, how could that happen? And then things seem to seriously fall the way of the local cop. Completely unexpected, right? This is the usual scope of small town corruption. Most officials aren't as stupid as the Bell people were -- not pulled from the left side of the Gaussian -- that's all; but again, none of it is even slightly relevant outside the venues affected.
No, it isn't. The MSM doesn't even talk about it. You're being massively disingenuous here. What you're trying to call political corruption is so minor, so inconsequential in the scheme of things, that it doesn't even rise to a value where it would deserve a page -- any page -- in any serious media outlet outside the small town it occurred in. The system is corrupt; that's what no one will talk about.
No. I'm talking about the big issues, the issues that are destroying the country, the issues that erode our liberties, that have pushed our economy to the brink, killed huge numbers of our soldiers to absolutely no purpose and driven our manufacturing capacity into irrelevance. You can mutter all you want about some small townies getting caught with their hand in the till, but that's just bread and circuses. Those clowns are of zero consequence, and removing them from the system doesn't improve it because those problems are at the leaves, not at the roots.
Absolutely. Have you looked at the financial barriers to entry for a solid legal representation? You think Joe and Jane average citizen can get in there and pony up six or seven figures -- or more -- to fight Corporation X? In your dreams, again. Last summer, I had need of a local attorney, and you know what the fees were for the c
I'm 55. My parents didn't need to do it. They let me wander, swim, canoe and boat the Delaware, explore caves, and much more. They educated me lovingly but remorselessly (there's no other term for it), and taught me to deal with the various things I faced. There was no Internet; and they outright forbid television based on their evaluation of the content, a gift for which I thank them most profoundly to this day. I built my first computer out of TTL logic based around a couple of 74181 ALUs, and have maintained an active interest since then, moving up through 8008, 6800, 6809, and so on. I have a wide variety of active interests, do lots of charity and PD work, am happy and am very, very successful in the business sense. My siblings have had similar experiences. So I think my parents did just fine with their choices.
I, on the other hand, have had to bring up kids with the Internet around, and what I did was use a whitelist and hang with them as we expanded the whitelist. So I didn't have to be there all the time; I only needed to be there as the limits expanded. Often, they'd ask me to add a particular site, and I'd look, and almost always do so -- or sit with them a while if I thought the expansion needed a guide. Today, this is so easy to do it's almost pitiful. OSX has it built right in; I'd be pretty surprised if Windows didn't as well. And linux has had squid forever. But in any case, a few minutes learning how to manage squid or something similar, and there is no problem in your home. Now, managing things outside your home is something else, and all that takes is spending a few minutes with the other parents and asking them about their Internet habits, then educating them if they seem to not know how to manage things. You also need to prepare your kids for unmonitored meets, where you have no control, because I bloody well guarantee you they're going to happen, and in large numbers. You won't do that by handing off what web sites they can see to Google or any other third party. It's your job. No one elses.
I have no sympathy for people who bleat about how difficult it all is. You chose to have kids; so man the fuck up and handle the job. If you don't know how, ask. You could even use.... the Internet!
No, the reason for that is so that the incompetent don't have to parent, so that politicians can grandstand ("protect the children", lol) and most particularly, so that the superstitious can maintain their power base, which is founded in large part upon restricting sexual knowledge and behaviors. I am pleased to note that those days are ending. Kids today know more about sex than their parents do, and indulge in superstitious behaviors far less, generally speaking, and we're considerably better off because of it. We're still suffering in the aftermath of some insane political behavior restricting all manner of things to/from/with teens, but I expect that will end too as the superstitious era draws to a close -- and of course the teens pay little or no attention anyway.
I'm not talking about the idiot pap about Weiner, et al. I'm talking about the corruption of the entire system; the two party lock-in, the choice of the citizens being reduced to choosing between a shit biscuit or a shit mcmuffin, no other choices, period. I'm talking about the subversion of the constitution. I'm talking about the complete ownership of congress, on every level, by corporate and moneyed interests. Of course the media publish stupidity about politician's sex lives. It keeps them from having to publish anything of substance. It keeps the masses entertained; make no mistake, they're good at what they do.
Yes, it really is. The legal system is massively corrupt at the foundation, and this is reflected at every level thereafter. The fact that you don't see it just indicates you're poorly informed. You've been led to the water. You have but to drink.
I have no biological kids. I do indeed think breeding is an error at this point in time. I have raised several, however. I have also been teaching and mentoring for decades; consequently my concerns and opinions are well distributed among younger members of society, and to the extent they have merit, are likely to continue to propagate. The fact that my genes aren't "moving forward" is of absolutely no consequence to me.
However, my attention isn't really on the distant future. It's on there here and now, and on the years coming that I expect to experience. I will be affected by the coming generations to one degree or another, and therefore, I consider them to be of perfectly legitimate interest to me.
Nonsense on both counts. I have contempt for people who breed thoughtlessly and poorly; but the future is a matter of physics, not the unfortunate close resemblance of our current society's breeding habits to the first few minutes of the film Idiocracy. If the future contains fewer unwanted and poorly raised children, I doubt that our society will end. The problem is really the other way: We're breeding socially crippled (and often unwanted) people, educating them poorly, and then setting them loose to do it all over again.
I disagree strongly. This is pivotal to bringing up your kids. Handing it off to a third party will simply ensure that they are cookie-cuttered instead of raised as unique, thinking individuals.
cts, I teach, I mentor, and I've raised several kids. I have never handed off my parental responsibilities to others without oversight. Selected results of this is include that my kids are completely free of superstition, understand the constitution as a document written to limit the government and written for the common man, and they're perfectly supportive of your gay and etc. friendly views. I could go on for quite a while; I've been very successful on many levels in this particular area. I'm very pleased with everyone, and tend to lean pretty hard towards "nurture" ideas as a result.
On top of which I blog and post somewhat prolifically, countering what I consider to be problem viewpoints and social errors as I encounter them. I've also written some books. All in all, I am quite certain that my views will have significant ripple effects. So thanks for your concerns, but they are groundless.
I'm 55. I'm also a voracious reader. I've read many, many US newspapers, certainly all the really big ones -- and I've never seen such a thing. What I see are papers that won't address the real issues, papers that kowtow to the superstitious, papers that throw up "the other side" even when there's absolutely no facts on the ground supporting the other side, etc.
Newspapers have a conflict of interest: They have to make money; and in order to make money, they have to leave a very large number of readers content with what they've read. So they can't honestly address political corruption, unjust wars, affronts to liberty, superstition, the fact that the legal system has devolved to corporate and moneyed-group serving process, and no longer even pretends to implement justice for the citizens at any level... I could go on, but the point is made: newspapers are pap-filled rags written for the lowest common denominator in their audience.
A blogger doesn't have to be dependent upon how many people read. zero, one or a thousand, it's all the same. So they can -- and do -- say whatever they think. Then we, as netizens, simply find the ones that are thinking clearly. The difference is that there are actually things worth reading on the net. In newspapers... not so much. I can point you to quite a few blogs where the reading is interesting, informative, pertinent, and well thought out, and few, if any, subjects are "off the table." I can't point you to even one newspaper where the same is true.
This puts Google in the position of being mommy and daddy. What I consider "inappropriate" is unlikely to be the same as the next parent; what this suggests, though, is that everyone gets to deal with what Google decides, and frankly... that's not an appropriate role for a third party. That's the parent's job. If you don't have time for guiding your kids, and you can't seem to come up with rules and behaviors, or use a white-list facility competently, then perhaps you shouldn't be spawning anyway, rather than begging for a third party to do your job for you.
Gee. It's almost like some over-controlling jerk in upper management must be out sick, or something.
Yes. And just the tip of the iceberg. Spooner's writings are amazing.