"So would you disagree with his assertion that a higher quality developer can produce code that would never come from a mediocre one?"
Yes I would. If Joel is right then one presumes he is always hiring the best programmers in his state. This should by his thesis should lead to world class software which in turn should quickly be the dominant software in their markets.
I propose that he is wrong because despite hiring the best programmers his software is not all that different then any other software and the marketplace tells me that it's in fact inferior to his competitiors who make much more money and sell lot more products then he does.
Interesting. You are proposing an instant execution of petty criminals. I am presuming you would not bother with such liberal concepts as charges, trials, juries and judges either. See somebody steal and then instatly execute them on the spot.
I do have one question for you though. Would you be responsible for cleaning up the scene and getting rid of the body or would you leave that to the state? I mean once you have removed his head and mounted it on your wall there is still the rest of the body to dispose of and the blood to be cleaned up and everything.
I suppose you could eat them like Dahmer did and keep other parts in the refrig so you can gaze upon them occationally to achieve stronger and longer lasting hard ons.
If you eliminate welfare then the people who can't make aliving will commit crimes. You will jail them and voila, back to welfare. What makes you whink walmart gives a fuck about the employees let alone enough to give them a raise because they can't afford glasses for their kids.
" Yeah it is troll material, but 99% of troll material that falls along the "I hate MS" POV is modded up in this forum."
I call bullshit. The best way to get modded up is to proclaim how stable XP is or how linux isn't ready for grandma and how it will never be ready. Oh yea also calling anybody who critizes MS zealot seems to work pretty well too.
"Oh I get it - you think it is a *good idea* to have the US army to have as many casualities possible!"
Since you have no arguments against what I am saying you now decide to put words in my mouth to see if you can argue against things you pretend I said. Let's see how that works out for you.
"Think: Why doesn't the US use gas? Why doesn't the US nuke them all? Please, if there is one question I ask that you answer, please answer this?"
What difference does it make how you kill children? Did you god or mother tell you that it was more moral to kill women and children by using phosphorus bombs (melts the skin off of people you know) then with nukes or other gasses? I think your god told you that otherwise you would not feel so morally superior because your president decided to kill innocent people using phosphorus bombs or depleted uranium instead of gas or nukes. Either way George Bush is responsible for killing innocent civillians in order to try and kill some soldier mounting an insurgency. Oh and why were they mounting an insurgency? What was their crime? Why it was because they objected to George Bush invading and occupying their country. GASP. FOr sure people trying to defend theit country against an occupying force should all be wiped out from the face of the earth. I bet your god told you that too huh?
Now to answer your question. Because it's just as easy and much cheaper to use conventional weaponry to kill women and children. No other reason. If it was cheaper and easier to use nukes we would use it, if it was cheaper and easier to use gas we would have done it.
So once again.
George Bush killed women and children by bombing a town with some insurgents in it (twice).
Saddam Hussein killed women and children by bombing a town with some insurgents in it (once).
George used phosphorus bombs which melted the skin off of people, Saddam used poisonous gas which choked them.
I don't know, I kind of think Saddam looks better in this comparison. He only bombed a city once, his victims probably suffered less, he did not destroy building or infrastucture so the people could move in afterwards and try to make a life.
Yup Saddam looks much better the GW in comparison.
You are talking about the second time we bombed the shit out of them right? The first time there was no such warning. But hey don't think about that! It will ruin your rosy picture of the US fox news painted for you. By the way I am so glad your moral system approves of killing women and children, destroying 75% of a city, confiscating communications equipment from doctors, kicking the press out so nobody can report on your atrocoties as long as you give them fair warning first.
Yup a great set of morals your mother thought you there.
Wow, a war pig republitard called me a liberal. Oh man that hurts. Hey I have an idea why don't you drag a nigger behind your truck or crucify a fag to a fencepost or something OK?
"Maybe there are other reasons, but if you think that it might be reason #2, then these 'soldiers' are military assets. *That* is significant difference between an army and a nation following 'moral' rules of engagement and terrorists who don't."
No it's not a significant difference. It would be a significant difference if the US risked the lives it's own soldiers (who are paid, trained and ready to die) in order to spare the lives of the innocent. The US did not do that. It used massive arial bombardment so that the risk of us soldiers dying would be minimized. It also used artilerary and tanks for the same reason.
The US army made a calculated decision to kill civillians in order to spare the lives of US soldiers. That much can not be denied.
So tell me how much a difference exists between bush, hussein and bin laden? I say none.
By the way, hussein did the exact same thing against a kurdish insurgency. In order to kill some peshmerga soldiers he gassed and entire city. So there is absolutely zero difference between what bush did and what saddam did. NONE, ZERO, ZIP, NADA.
The problem is that your reality ignores facts, it ignores actions of the bush which are exactly the same as saddams.
Wow, you have completely dismantled my argument about how al-zarqawi is trying to defend his nation from an agressive invading force acting outside of international law and UN sanction.
Bzzt sorry we are not playing the same game. You keep your head buried in the sand OK? Don't let any facts enter your brain and disrupt your limited view of the world.
Both FDR and Winston Churchill were leading their countries in war to defend against agressors. Neither one started the war, both of them were trying to protect their country against an agressive army intent on invasion. In this regard both of them can be compared to al-zarqawi. Sorry the truth is so hard to take but there it is.
Wow, telling the truth sure is costing me karma today, oh well I have some to burn...
"So was FDR a "war pig"? Does he get a place in your list? How about ol' Winston Churchill? They led their countries during a war didn't they? They must be war pigs then right?"
No they were not. A war pig is one that wages war for fun and profit. Iraq did not attack the US, George Bush is waging a war in Iraq for his own purposes (fun, profit, religion, who knows). It is a discretionary war and that makes him a war pig.
So in summary, if you are the agressor then you are a war pig. If you wage war against countries that have not attacked you then you are a war pig.
Now to drive the point home...
Saddam Hussein gassed a town to put down an insurgency thereby killing thousands of innocent people along with a few combatants in the insurgency.
George Bush bombed a town to put down an insurgency (twice!) thereby killing thousands of innocent people along with a few combatants in the insurgency.
So what's the difference? Saddam used gas, George bombed twice. Yup that's it. No other difference. they are both war pigs.
I don't know. I encourage everybody I know who builds web sites to let people know when they using a non compliant browser especially if it renders different then a compliant browser.
I think it's great that people warning about IE is becoming "alarmingly common" I just with it was more common.
"There is a huge difference between a) destroying military assets as the primary target and having collaterol damage, and b) going out to kill civilians with no military assets in mind."
No, there might be a tiny little bit difference but not a HUGE difference. When we bombed the shit out of fallujia we were not destroying a military asset, we were destroying a city so in that case there is ZERO differnce.
"Your logic only leads us to one place: that terrorism is ok, because it not immoral. "
Only if you have no clue to as what logic is. I am simply saying that terrorims is a matter of a silly semantic game. All war is terrorism, terrorism just war. There is no difference between the two. There is no differnce between a war pig like Osama Bin Laden, a war pig like Saddam Hussein and a war pig like George Bush. They all wage war to get what they want, they don't care how many people die to get what they want.
" Can you imagine if from the late 1940's to the present day the African-American people of the USA adopted the same tactics and methods to obtain justice that the Palestinians have used?"
Can you imagine if from the 40s to the present day Mexicans or canadians would set up settlements on US soil, wall them off, and then kill anybody who tried to stop them.
Can you imagine if the US had set up an apartheid system against the indians and peridically dropped missiles into the indian reservations killing a couple of thousand a year?
Can you imagine if the US never gave full citizenship to the indians, instead keeping them destitute for generations?
It's time for isreal to act as a civilized nation. Every country that has won terratory in war has eventually given the people it conquered citizenship. Every single one with one glaring exception, Israel. Israel must immediately make all palestenians living under israeli occupation full citizenship and full human rights. It's the civilized thing to do after all.
"The Palestinians don't realize how lucky they are to have the Israelis as the occupying force in their land. "
Well I am so glad you are merely content to kill a few thousand a year as opposed to all at once. You guys are so great, merely torturing them and keeping them in bondage.
"Where did the U.S. focus its attention, and the lion's share of its military, money, and resource instead, Iraq which had NOTHING to do with 9/11 or Al Qaeda."
Don't tell a republican that. Survey after survey indicates that a significant (if not a majority) of Americans believe that Saddam Hussein was responsible for or played a part in 9/11. Needless to say they are all republicans.
"In Iraq Al Qaeda no doubt sees a replay of Russia in Afghanistan. Tie up the U.S. there with an insurgency for the next 10 years and inflict massive economic, political and morale damage on the U.S and Britain. The U.S.S.R's misguided war in Afghanistan was the single biggest contributor to its ultimate collapse. Al Qaeda came in to being figthing that war with CIA backing and they no doubt want to repeat their victory in Iraq against their former benefactors."
Al Quada was successful because they were able to get sphisticated weaponlry and intelligence from the US. Who will back them now? Maybe china? maybe north korea? Maybe Iran? maybe somebody from south america? maybe even the russians? I am afraid too many countries hate us and would like to see us suffer. It could be anybody.
"Patriots tend to know who non-combatants are. Terrorists don't know the meaning of the term."
What difference does it make if you kill them anyway. I mean is it really that important that you feel sorry after you killed innocent civillians?
We bombed the shit our of fallujia twice knowing full well that there were going to be non combatants killed. The second time (according to the bbc) we destroyed 75% of the city. But I guess we are so morally superior to the terrorists because we know we killed non combatants and are sorry for it. Oh and we are so much morally superior then saddam because when he was trying to put down an insurgency he used chemical weapons to kill people. When we try and put down an insurgency we use conventional bombs to kill people.
Yup we are all sooooooo much better then those terrorists and saddam.
Was a charge of conspiracy leveled, ajudicated, and then only after a penalty issued by a judge and a thorough appeals process the web site shut down?
You screaming and yelling that its a conspiracy doesn't make it so.
The fact of the matter is that after the first set of bombings Britain immediately outlawed certain kinds of speech. Specifically any speech by a muslim which could be construed as an incitement to terrorism.
In my mind this means the terrorists have already won. I know many people disagree with me but the freedom of speech was not designed to protect popular opinion.
Iraq was their own country too, look how far that got them.
Co county is their own country unless they can repel an invasion by the US. It's as simple as that. I will grant you that in this case even if china is unable to repel an invasion they can make it hurt really bad so that allows them some degree of freedom to do whatever they want.
Actually that's not quite true. He only cut off federal funding for new lines. He has no moral problem with privately funded stem cell research. He is more of a capitalist then he is a christian.
I propose we keep insulting the people who write linux in the hopes that they write the drivers themselves (and risk jail time for reverse engineering or DMCA violations).
There is probalby no sense in contacting the vendors. I think simply stating that linux will never be adopted on the desktop over and over again should solve the problem neatly.
I would also rule out doing anything that might even remotebly be considered constructive. So don't code, don't give money, don't write to the vendors, don't test, don't do anything except complain loudly that your old piece of crap hardware was not supported fully by linux and that you went to windows instead.
Yup. Just quit, you'll be happier elsewhere anyway. If the management is making technical decisions then the company is probably not going to do very well in the long run anyway. I never met an accountant who knew anything about how to put together networks and it's silly to work for a company where accountants and MBAs are making technological decisions.
Slashdot Mirror
"So would you disagree with his assertion that a higher quality developer can produce code that would never come from a mediocre one?"
Yes I would. If Joel is right then one presumes he is always hiring the best programmers in his state. This should by his thesis should lead to world class software which in turn should quickly be the dominant software in their markets.
I propose that he is wrong because despite hiring the best programmers his software is not all that different then any other software and the marketplace tells me that it's in fact inferior to his competitiors who make much more money and sell lot more products then he does.
Interesting. You are proposing an instant execution of petty criminals. I am presuming you would not bother with such liberal concepts as charges, trials, juries and judges either. See somebody steal and then instatly execute them on the spot.
I do have one question for you though. Would you be responsible for cleaning up the scene and getting rid of the body or would you leave that to the state? I mean once you have removed his head and mounted it on your wall there is still the rest of the body to dispose of and the blood to be cleaned up and everything.
I suppose you could eat them like Dahmer did and keep other parts in the refrig so you can gaze upon them occationally to achieve stronger and longer lasting hard ons.
If you eliminate welfare then the people who can't make aliving will commit crimes. You will jail them and voila, back to welfare. What makes you whink walmart gives a fuck about the employees let alone enough to give them a raise because they can't afford glasses for their kids.
" Yeah it is troll material, but 99% of troll material that falls along the "I hate MS" POV is modded up in this forum."
I call bullshit. The best way to get modded up is to proclaim how stable XP is or how linux isn't ready for grandma and how it will never be ready. Oh yea also calling anybody who critizes MS zealot seems to work pretty well too.
"Oh I get it - you think it is a *good idea* to have the US army to have as many casualities possible!"
Since you have no arguments against what I am saying you now decide to put words in my mouth to see if you can argue against things you pretend I said. Let's see how that works out for you.
"Think: Why doesn't the US use gas? Why doesn't the US nuke them all? Please, if there is one question I ask that you answer, please answer this?"
What difference does it make how you kill children? Did you god or mother tell you that it was more moral to kill women and children by using phosphorus bombs (melts the skin off of people you know) then with nukes or other gasses? I think your god told you that otherwise you would not feel so morally superior because your president decided to kill innocent people using phosphorus bombs or depleted uranium instead of gas or nukes. Either way George Bush is responsible for killing innocent civillians in order to try and kill some soldier mounting an insurgency. Oh and why were they mounting an insurgency? What was their crime? Why it was because they objected to George Bush invading and occupying their country. GASP. FOr sure people trying to defend theit country against an occupying force should all be wiped out from the face of the earth. I bet your god told you that too huh?
Now to answer your question. Because it's just as easy and much cheaper to use conventional weaponry to kill women and children. No other reason. If it was cheaper and easier to use nukes we would use it, if it was cheaper and easier to use gas we would have done it.
So once again.
George Bush killed women and children by bombing a town with some insurgents in it (twice).
Saddam Hussein killed women and children by bombing a town with some insurgents in it (once).
George used phosphorus bombs which melted the skin off of people, Saddam used poisonous gas which choked them.
I don't know, I kind of think Saddam looks better in this comparison. He only bombed a city once, his victims probably suffered less, he did not destroy building or infrastucture so the people could move in afterwards and try to make a life.
Yup Saddam looks much better the GW in comparison.
You are talking about the second time we bombed the shit out of them right? The first time there was no such warning. But hey don't think about that! It will ruin your rosy picture of the US fox news painted for you. By the way I am so glad your moral system approves of killing women and children, destroying 75% of a city, confiscating communications equipment from doctors, kicking the press out so nobody can report on your atrocoties as long as you give them fair warning first.
Yup a great set of morals your mother thought you there.
Wow, a war pig republitard called me a liberal. Oh man that hurts. Hey I have an idea why don't you drag a nigger behind your truck or crucify a fag to a fencepost or something OK?
"Maybe there are other reasons, but if you think that it might be reason #2, then these 'soldiers' are military assets. *That* is significant difference between an army and a nation following 'moral' rules of engagement and terrorists who don't."
No it's not a significant difference. It would be a significant difference if the US risked the lives it's own soldiers (who are paid, trained and ready to die) in order to spare the lives of the innocent. The US did not do that. It used massive arial bombardment so that the risk of us soldiers dying would be minimized. It also used artilerary and tanks for the same reason.
The US army made a calculated decision to kill civillians in order to spare the lives of US soldiers. That much can not be denied.
So tell me how much a difference exists between bush, hussein and bin laden? I say none.
By the way, hussein did the exact same thing against a kurdish insurgency. In order to kill some peshmerga soldiers he gassed and entire city. So there is absolutely zero difference between what bush did and what saddam did. NONE, ZERO, ZIP, NADA.
The problem is that your reality ignores facts, it ignores actions of the bush which are exactly the same as saddams.
Wow, you have completely dismantled my argument about how al-zarqawi is trying to defend his nation from an agressive invading force acting outside of international law and UN sanction.
Bzzt sorry we are not playing the same game. You keep your head buried in the sand OK? Don't let any facts enter your brain and disrupt your limited view of the world.
Police operate under a framework and laws. There are checks and balances on them.
The US acted alone and outside of UN sanction and international law. Calling yourself the police does not make it so.
The US invaded iraq for fun, profit and election results. Policing had nothing to do with it.
Oh one more thing..
Both FDR and Winston Churchill were leading their countries in war to defend against agressors. Neither one started the war, both of them were trying to protect their country against an agressive army intent on invasion. In this regard both of them can be compared to al-zarqawi. Sorry the truth is so hard to take but there it is.
Wow, telling the truth sure is costing me karma today, oh well I have some to burn...
"So was FDR a "war pig"? Does he get a place in your list? How about ol' Winston Churchill? They led their countries during a war didn't they? They must be war pigs then right?"
No they were not. A war pig is one that wages war for fun and profit. Iraq did not attack the US, George Bush is waging a war in Iraq for his own purposes (fun, profit, religion, who knows). It is a discretionary war and that makes him a war pig.
So in summary, if you are the agressor then you are a war pig. If you wage war against countries that have not attacked you then you are a war pig.
Now to drive the point home...
Saddam Hussein gassed a town to put down an insurgency thereby killing thousands of innocent people along with a few combatants in the insurgency.
George Bush bombed a town to put down an insurgency (twice!) thereby killing thousands of innocent people along with a few combatants in the insurgency.
So what's the difference? Saddam used gas, George bombed twice. Yup that's it. No other difference. they are both war pigs.
I don't know. I encourage everybody I know who builds web sites to let people know when they using a non compliant browser especially if it renders different then a compliant browser.
I think it's great that people warning about IE is becoming "alarmingly common" I just with it was more common.
"There is a huge difference between a) destroying military assets as the primary target and having collaterol damage, and b) going out to kill civilians with no military assets in mind."
No, there might be a tiny little bit difference but not a HUGE difference. When we bombed the shit out of fallujia we were not destroying a military asset, we were destroying a city so in that case there is ZERO differnce.
"Your logic only leads us to one place: that terrorism is ok, because it not immoral. "
Only if you have no clue to as what logic is. I am simply saying that terrorims is a matter of a silly semantic game. All war is terrorism, terrorism just war. There is no difference between the two. There is no differnce between a war pig like Osama Bin Laden, a war pig like Saddam Hussein and a war pig like George Bush. They all wage war to get what they want, they don't care how many people die to get what they want.
So is Al Jazeera a terrorist organization then?
As far as I can see the only thing they seem to be guilty of is saying things republicans don't like.
So if you say that every member of al quada should be killed then you should go to jail?
It's perfectly OK to incite others to kill human beings as long as those human beings are "the enemy".
" Can you imagine if from the late 1940's to the present day the African-American people of the USA adopted the same tactics and methods to obtain justice that the Palestinians have used?"
Can you imagine if from the 40s to the present day Mexicans or canadians would set up settlements on US soil, wall them off, and then kill anybody who tried to stop them.
Can you imagine if the US had set up an apartheid system against the indians and peridically dropped missiles into the indian reservations killing a couple of thousand a year?
Can you imagine if the US never gave full citizenship to the indians, instead keeping them destitute for generations?
It's time for isreal to act as a civilized nation. Every country that has won terratory in war has eventually given the people it conquered citizenship. Every single one with one glaring exception, Israel. Israel must immediately make all palestenians living under israeli occupation full citizenship and full human rights. It's the civilized thing to do after all.
"The Palestinians don't realize how lucky they are to have the Israelis as the occupying force in their land. "
Well I am so glad you are merely content to kill a few thousand a year as opposed to all at once. You guys are so great, merely torturing them and keeping them in bondage.
"Where did the U.S. focus its attention, and the lion's share of its military, money, and resource instead, Iraq which had NOTHING to do with 9/11 or Al Qaeda."
Don't tell a republican that. Survey after survey indicates that a significant (if not a majority) of Americans believe that Saddam Hussein was responsible for or played a part in 9/11. Needless to say they are all republicans.
"In Iraq Al Qaeda no doubt sees a replay of Russia in Afghanistan. Tie up the U.S. there with an insurgency for the next 10 years and inflict massive economic, political and morale damage on the U.S and Britain. The U.S.S.R's misguided war in Afghanistan was the single biggest contributor to its ultimate collapse. Al Qaeda came in to being figthing that war with CIA backing and they no doubt want to repeat their victory in Iraq against their former benefactors."
Al Quada was successful because they were able to get sphisticated weaponlry and intelligence from the US. Who will back them now? Maybe china? maybe north korea? Maybe Iran? maybe somebody from south america? maybe even the russians? I am afraid too many countries hate us and would like to see us suffer. It could be anybody.
"Patriots tend to know who non-combatants are. Terrorists don't know the meaning of the term."
What difference does it make if you kill them anyway. I mean is it really that important that you feel sorry after you killed innocent civillians?
We bombed the shit our of fallujia twice knowing full well that there were going to be non combatants killed. The second time (according to the bbc) we destroyed 75% of the city. But I guess we are so morally superior to the terrorists because we know we killed non combatants and are sorry for it. Oh and we are so much morally superior then saddam because when he was trying to put down an insurgency he used chemical weapons to kill people. When we try and put down an insurgency we use conventional bombs to kill people.
Yup we are all sooooooo much better then those terrorists and saddam.
Was a charge of conspiracy leveled, ajudicated, and then only after a penalty issued by a judge and a thorough appeals process the web site shut down?
You screaming and yelling that its a conspiracy doesn't make it so.
The fact of the matter is that after the first set of bombings Britain immediately outlawed certain kinds of speech. Specifically any speech by a muslim which could be construed as an incitement to terrorism.
In my mind this means the terrorists have already won. I know many people disagree with me but the freedom of speech was not designed to protect popular opinion.
Iraq was their own country too, look how far that got them.
Co county is their own country unless they can repel an invasion by the US. It's as simple as that. I will grant you that in this case even if china is unable to repel an invasion they can make it hurt really bad so that allows them some degree of freedom to do whatever they want.
Actually that's not quite true. He only cut off federal funding for new lines. He has no moral problem with privately funded stem cell research. He is more of a capitalist then he is a christian.
Oddly enough yes. The USB and CD worked fine virtually nothing else was recognized.
I propose we keep insulting the people who write linux in the hopes that they write the drivers themselves (and risk jail time for reverse engineering or DMCA violations).
There is probalby no sense in contacting the vendors. I think simply stating that linux will never be adopted on the desktop over and over again should solve the problem neatly.
I would also rule out doing anything that might even remotebly be considered constructive. So don't code, don't give money, don't write to the vendors, don't test, don't do anything except complain loudly that your old piece of crap hardware was not supported fully by linux and that you went to windows instead.
That will solve the problem for sure.
Yup. Just quit, you'll be happier elsewhere anyway. If the management is making technical decisions then the company is probably not going to do very well in the long run anyway. I never met an accountant who knew anything about how to put together networks and it's silly to work for a company where accountants and MBAs are making technological decisions.