Forgive my cynicism, but it's not going to happen.
The greatest flaw I see in socialism is its lack of incentive to work. If you don't have a structure of possession (money, for instance) that can then be traded or bartered for other possessions, and people can simply receive things because they ask for them, they're not going to work to obtain the bargaining chip. And let's face it, money is pretty much the only reason that *most* people work. Take that away and what you have is a facade of equality while nothing gets done and eventually the structure collapses on itself.
It seems you would object that we've never seen socialism, but it doesn't seem to be for lack of trying. By removing one centralized power base, and not filling it with another, you leave it to be filled by anyone with enough charisma or guns to pull it off, which is why we equate communism with dictatorship.
Oh give it a fucking rest. Yes, we realize that most people here prefer Linux, but the constant ragging on Windows is annoying as all get out. You could at least try to be clever in noting their OS choice, but instead you're just being a douchebag. So stop.
Fucking people over is one thing. Fucking people over in a way they can readily notice is another. Bush is subtle, and I can't see him doing something that the majority of the country would readily recognize as "bad" (not that TV suddenly cutting off would in fact be bad, but it would be so perceived).
Anyway, I seriously doubt this whole idea was Bush's. Stuff like this doesn't seem like his cup of tea.
Interestingly, early Christians didn't seem to think so. It wasn't until the Crusades that homosexuality began being persecuted along with Jews, Muslims, and to a greater extent than before, pagans. Even if homosexuality was not promoted, it was tolerated and accepted as something that could not be avoided. At least until the Church decided to take control of its adherents on a more personal level.
Wow. First of all, he's a troll. What's the point of arguing with him? Second, I think he's pretty aware of what Christianity is about and is mocking the Christian tradition of promoting the deaths of non Christians (i.e. Jews, Muslims, pagans, and Christian heretics).
"A study by researchers at the University of Waterloo indicates that Earth in its infancy probably maintained an ideal distance from the Sun, a surprising finding that may alter the way many scientists think about how life began on the planet. The new study indicates that the Earth stayed approximately 1 AU away from the sun, implying a more favourable climate for the production of pre-biotic organic compounds like amino acids, and ultimately, life."
Each administration selects the head of most departments of the federal bureaucracy, so the FCC would be led by someone installed by the current "conservative" administration. This doesn't mean that the FCC will become considerably more conservative/liberal/commie, but it will modify which things it publicly focuses on.
Nonetheless, the idea is to take a centrist position where you are, because by definition that's the position that the majority of the population will agree with, or at least find palatable. It is not at all surprising that the American center is different from that of other countries.
Anyway, trite referrences annoy me, but that's beside the point. I was curious to see how I'd be modded. For example, this post got me 3 insightful mods, and I was expecting troll.
I don't take slashdot seriously anymore, so I use it as somewhat of a sandbox where I can try things out to produce reactions.
This could be considered trolling (and I think is by most people), but most trolls are interested in producing a specific effect while my intent is to observe the effect.
Just because there's a referrence you can make, doesn't mean it's worth your time to type or our time to read. So here are some simple rules:
1) Make sure that the referrence you're thinking of applies in some way to the current situation. 2) Make sure said referrence was funny in the first place. 3) Check to make sure its insertion into the thread of conversation would actually be funny. (This is especially important if it wasn't funny in the first place.) 4) Finally, think for a moment. If you were someone else reading it, would it come off that you're quoting for the sake of quoting, or are legitimately funny?
If it fails 1,3, or 4, don't post it. If it fails 2, be sure that it's one funny motherfucking juxtaposition.
"It's just seems too hard to make robust Perl code and that really bothers me."
Yeah, whenever I write a non-CGI script, I feel like it's a rushed job because it's very difficult to take care of unexpected input as gracefully as you can in other languages. Thus, unless it involves parsing, I typically redo my scripts in C sooner or later.
Incidentally, I have the same problem (or at least feeling of the problem) with Java, and it doesn't do handily that which I require of it, which is why I can hardly stand to use it.
I found comp.lang.perl.misc to be helpful as far as it went. Of course you can't waltz in and ask a stupid question, just like you can't in comp.lang.c.
However, I quickly realized that the only answers you get are going to be using someone's idiom of choice, and rarely do they come with adequate explanation.
As far as putting obfuscated perl in their sig, that seems to be a rather common attribute of perl users. They're just for fun, I have encountered very few actual language snobs.
I don't know if there are any official obfuscated perl contests, but it's a common enough game we play. Usually it's in the form of golf, because reducing to the fewest elements is an excellent test of skill and knowledge of the langauge's nuances.
Also, I agree with rewriting things in C (unless of course they involve text parsing, at which point perl is the tool of choice). Perl scripts are handy to get things done fast, but for some reason I feel that projects are more *done* in C. Maybe it's the speed boost.
I more or less learned perl and C cotemporaneously, so I see where you're coming from. But really, once you get over the idea of no real data types, and learn a couple of the tricks perl does in order to drop extra variables, it's not a big deal, and I think it's time well spent learning.
And while yes, Java is easy to understand, it's just another step in the C line that, in the end, doesn't allow for the flexibility of perl, or rather can't be both as flexible and compact as perl.
In my experience, it requires a bit of knowledge of the subtleties of perl to write anything that could not easily be unraveled with proper spacing. And if you use good variable names, instead of the perl trademark single character variable names, it's not at all difficult to visually parse it.
Actually when I was first learning perl, once I got over the idea of scalars, I could read through the program I was looking at with no trouble.
No, that could indicate that while it's not a troll or flamebait, it adds so little to the conversation that it would be a blessing for it to be removed from the sight of those not browsing at -1.
At least that's what I'd use it for, if I used it. I prefer to mod up, but some people are just so terrible at delivering jokes (either by killing another one which may or may not have already sucked, or by starting their own terrible abomination), they need a rebuking, and there the "Overrated" mod fails to deliver the message I want them to receive.
Call it a little perverse/sadistic, but that's why I want more descriptive moderation choices.
Mods really don't have any power to censor. Just give you an up or down mod. Sure a lot of it is modding down dissenting opinions, but that's only because most of them can't tell the difference between a good argument and a poor one that supports their worldview or a poor argument and a good one that goes against their worldview.
On the other hand, since people started pointing this out, mods have been modding up dissenting opinions and marking as flamebait common sentiments. It's a bit silly.
A bit late to get in on this discussion, but where did the goofyheadedpunk say anything about his grandmother being insulted? Or were you trying to be funny?
Slashdot Mirror
Forgive my cynicism, but it's not going to happen.
The greatest flaw I see in socialism is its lack of incentive to work. If you don't have a structure of possession (money, for instance) that can then be traded or bartered for other possessions, and people can simply receive things because they ask for them, they're not going to work to obtain the bargaining chip. And let's face it, money is pretty much the only reason that *most* people work. Take that away and what you have is a facade of equality while nothing gets done and eventually the structure collapses on itself.
It seems you would object that we've never seen socialism, but it doesn't seem to be for lack of trying. By removing one centralized power base, and not filling it with another, you leave it to be filled by anyone with enough charisma or guns to pull it off, which is why we equate communism with dictatorship.
Oh give it a fucking rest. Yes, we realize that most people here prefer Linux, but the constant ragging on Windows is annoying as all get out. You could at least try to be clever in noting their OS choice, but instead you're just being a douchebag. So stop.
Fucking people over is one thing. Fucking people over in a way they can readily notice is another. Bush is subtle, and I can't see him doing something that the majority of the country would readily recognize as "bad" (not that TV suddenly cutting off would in fact be bad, but it would be so perceived).
Anyway, I seriously doubt this whole idea was Bush's. Stuff like this doesn't seem like his cup of tea.
Interestingly, early Christians didn't seem to think so. It wasn't until the Crusades that homosexuality began being persecuted along with Jews, Muslims, and to a greater extent than before, pagans. Even if homosexuality was not promoted, it was tolerated and accepted as something that could not be avoided. At least until the Church decided to take control of its adherents on a more personal level.
Yes. Yes it is.
Wow. First of all, he's a troll. What's the point of arguing with him? Second, I think he's pretty aware of what Christianity is about and is mocking the Christian tradition of promoting the deaths of non Christians (i.e. Jews, Muslims, pagans, and Christian heretics).
Orbital radius favorable for sustaining life.
"A study by researchers at the University of Waterloo indicates that Earth in its infancy probably maintained an ideal distance from the Sun, a surprising finding that may alter the way many scientists think about how life began on the planet. The new study indicates that the Earth stayed approximately 1 AU away from the sun, implying a more favourable climate for the production of pre-biotic organic compounds like amino acids, and ultimately, life."
Everybody knows five year plans are the way to go.
The either-or construct is the English version of xor, and that makes something mutually exclusive.
Each administration selects the head of most departments of the federal bureaucracy, so the FCC would be led by someone installed by the current "conservative" administration. This doesn't mean that the FCC will become considerably more conservative/liberal/commie, but it will modify which things it publicly focuses on.
Nonetheless, the idea is to take a centrist position where you are, because by definition that's the position that the majority of the population will agree with, or at least find palatable. It is not at all surprising that the American center is different from that of other countries.
I don't have a dog.
Anyway, trite referrences annoy me, but that's beside the point. I was curious to see how I'd be modded. For example, this post got me 3 insightful mods, and I was expecting troll.
I don't take slashdot seriously anymore, so I use it as somewhat of a sandbox where I can try things out to produce reactions.
This could be considered trolling (and I think is by most people), but most trolls are interested in producing a specific effect while my intent is to observe the effect.
Hahaha, you're not funny.
Just because there's a referrence you can make, doesn't mean it's worth your time to type or our time to read. So here are some simple rules:
1) Make sure that the referrence you're thinking of applies in some way to the current situation.
2) Make sure said referrence was funny in the first place.
3) Check to make sure its insertion into the thread of conversation would actually be funny. (This is especially important if it wasn't funny in the first place.)
4) Finally, think for a moment. If you were someone else reading it, would it come off that you're quoting for the sake of quoting, or are legitimately funny?
If it fails 1,3, or 4, don't post it. If it fails 2, be sure that it's one funny motherfucking juxtaposition.
Hope I helped.
"It's just seems too hard to make robust Perl code and that really bothers me."
Yeah, whenever I write a non-CGI script, I feel like it's a rushed job because it's very difficult to take care of unexpected input as gracefully as you can in other languages. Thus, unless it involves parsing, I typically redo my scripts in C sooner or later.
Incidentally, I have the same problem (or at least feeling of the problem) with Java, and it doesn't do handily that which I require of it, which is why I can hardly stand to use it.
I found comp.lang.perl.misc to be helpful as far as it went. Of course you can't waltz in and ask a stupid question, just like you can't in comp.lang.c.
However, I quickly realized that the only answers you get are going to be using someone's idiom of choice, and rarely do they come with adequate explanation.
As far as putting obfuscated perl in their sig, that seems to be a rather common attribute of perl users. They're just for fun, I have encountered very few actual language snobs.
I feel just the opposite. I've played with Java a bit (even took a class). The whole time, I kept thinking "Java would do a lot better to be perl."
I don't know if there are any official obfuscated perl contests, but it's a common enough game we play. Usually it's in the form of golf, because reducing to the fewest elements is an excellent test of skill and knowledge of the langauge's nuances.
Also, I agree with rewriting things in C (unless of course they involve text parsing, at which point perl is the tool of choice). Perl scripts are handy to get things done fast, but for some reason I feel that projects are more *done* in C. Maybe it's the speed boost.
I more or less learned perl and C cotemporaneously, so I see where you're coming from. But really, once you get over the idea of no real data types, and learn a couple of the tricks perl does in order to drop extra variables, it's not a big deal, and I think it's time well spent learning.
And while yes, Java is easy to understand, it's just another step in the C line that, in the end, doesn't allow for the flexibility of perl, or rather can't be both as flexible and compact as perl.
In my experience, it requires a bit of knowledge of the subtleties of perl to write anything that could not easily be unraveled with proper spacing. And if you use good variable names, instead of the perl trademark single character variable names, it's not at all difficult to visually parse it.
Actually when I was first learning perl, once I got over the idea of scalars, I could read through the program I was looking at with no trouble.
No, that could indicate that while it's not a troll or flamebait, it adds so little to the conversation that it would be a blessing for it to be removed from the sight of those not browsing at -1.
At least that's what I'd use it for, if I used it. I prefer to mod up, but some people are just so terrible at delivering jokes (either by killing another one which may or may not have already sucked, or by starting their own terrible abomination), they need a rebuking, and there the "Overrated" mod fails to deliver the message I want them to receive.
Call it a little perverse/sadistic, but that's why I want more descriptive moderation choices.
There really should be a -1: Unfunny mod.
Mods really don't have any power to censor. Just give you an up or down mod. Sure a lot of it is modding down dissenting opinions, but that's only because most of them can't tell the difference between a good argument and a poor one that supports their worldview or a poor argument and a good one that goes against their worldview. On the other hand, since people started pointing this out, mods have been modding up dissenting opinions and marking as flamebait common sentiments. It's a bit silly.
A bit late to get in on this discussion, but where did the goofyheadedpunk say anything about his grandmother being insulted? Or were you trying to be funny?
I'm reading at -1, and it's there, just before your comment.
That's the point. Improved technology should be expected to supercede old technology.