all theories without proof are, well, as you say, essentially trolls
No, all theories without proof are unprovable. This does not mean proof will never exist, and more importantly, this does not make them disprovable. If a theory is neither provable nor disprovable, then it is not a thoery, by the scientific definition of the word. It then lies firmly in the realm of philosophy. And as such, science should not be used to defend it, because it can't. But also, science should not be used to attack it, also because it can't.
Science should get involved only when specific claims that a "believer" makes are provable or disprovable. Scientifically proving or disproving the general existence of some random deity is an exercise in futility.
Whether it is worthwhile to believe anything that is unprovable is a question each person must ask themselves.
All I will say is that many great minds believed things that there was no proof for. Newton believed that normal chemical processes could transform one element into another (i.e. alchemy, lead into gold, etc.) Einstein believed that quantum mechanics was wrong, even as he continued to investigate and break down all the evidence he thought would support his opinion. The fact that someone holds an unprovable belief doesn't make them any less intelligent, or any less of a scientist.
I can prove something doesn't exist by its global absence
But you can't prove the global absence of a god. Remember that the deity in question (and indeed most other deities) supposedly exists outside the laws of physics that we currently understand. You can prove that we can't detect its presence, but you can't prove its absence. Not until we understand 100% of all physics that governs the universe down to its truly elemental units.
You can disprove certain claims of some people who believe in a god, but that is not what you're talking about.
Since it is currently scientifically unknowable whether or not a god exists outside understood physics, the debate of whether a god exists should be considered a philosophical one, not a scientific one. A great number of both Christians and Atheists would do well to remember that. I do not consider my faith in God to be a theory. I know it can't be proven. It's a belief. A philosophy. All that matters is that it is not currently provably false.
all theories without proof are, well, as you say, essentially trolls
I think you have a misunderstanding of how theories work. A theory is something that can be rigorously tested, and potentially disproved. Very few, if any, theories are ever proven true. Most are just accepted when it is shown there is no known evidence to the contrary.
If you hold the opinion that harboring a belief which is untestable is a waste of time and effort, then the only viable "religion" is agnosticism not atheism.
I don't hold that opinion. I think philosophy is worthwhile, if for no other reason than that it generally incourages useful introspection.
more tolerant than many other religions I've encountered...
In my experience it is usually only a tiny portion of believers of a given religion that "hates you or wants to attack you for your belief". Please don't blame the religion. Those people are responsible for their own actions, which are generally at least not sanctioned and at most condemned by tthe religions they claim to subscribe to. Just because there are a lot of people who claim to subscribe to that religion doesn't mean they all want to attack other beliefs.
I'm comfortable enough with my faith that when someone tells me they don't believe the same way and aren't interested in hearing about it that I let it be. If they don't believe it, they don't believe it. It's not like I can prove them wrong. I don't feel the need to try to tear them down. Those who do are a tiny minority whom the rest of us are terribly ashamed to be undeservingly associated with.
Atheists/agnostics have the same type of fanatic devotees who are obsessed with tearing down people's beliefs. A number of them regularly post on/., but are rarely modded Trolls like their religious counterparts are.
If you are positive you want to do something for a long time (ie a career) then you should have the ability to learn about that career at your own pace given the materials available.
Of course. This should go without saying. If you don't have the ability to do this, then you will become largely unemployable very shortly after graduation. One or two companies will realize that they've received a lump of clay too stiff to mold into what they need, and will dump you. The third company will see on your resume that you've been out of school for 2 or three years, gone through 2 jobs, and not picked up any new skills or technologies. They won't need to waste a year of wages on you to see that you're unmoldable.
But that doesn't mean school is useless by any means. It gives you a starting point. It gives you a bit of direction. This is the handholding that not everyone needs. But a lot of people do. I can learn great on my own, pretty much regardless what I study. But it has taken me a long time to learn how to decide what is worth learning. My school gave me a direction. The ABET-accredited curriculum ensured that the things that I was studying were things that employers would want me to know. Once that basis was laid, I was able to branch off on my own without wasting my time on stuff that wasn't going to actually benefit me at all.
Additionally, school provides a framework that you must work within. It exposes you to the idea of personal responsibility, both intellectual and financial. It exposes you to time-extended projects and cooperative projects. All in a monitored environment where, if you're having problems, they can help you, rather than fire you. It would be wonderful if every company was as freeform, trusting, and progressive as Google, or Pixar. But that's not how most of the world works, and it never will be. Most of us need to know how to work within the framework. And even at those "ideal" companies, you need to have the skills I mentioned at the top of this paragraph, or you're going to be useless to them.
School is an introduction. A way to learn to swim before being thrown into the ocean. Not everyone needs this. But most people need to at least be told which direction it is to shore.
I know that the situation there wasn't typical, but I also know it's not totally rare either. I've heard similar stories from friends at other companies, especially due to growing pains. This was the case with us. Most of the "managers" were so-so engineers who decided their true calling was management, and were moved up and placed over new developers. They either had no real experience in leadership, or were in the process of getting their Masters and eager to indiscriminately apply all the shiny new book smarts they were getting. From what I hear from friends still employed there things have gotten better.
It's not always the PM's fault. Some companies, like my ex-employer until not long before I left, do not allow the PM to have contact with the customer directly. Often the sale is made first, including guaranteed features and delivery date, and then this information is handed down to the PM. There's not much the PM can do about it once he realizes the timeline is impossible except beg his boss to get a renegotiation going. Unfortunately the company is usually willing rather to sacrifice the good treatment of their own employees rather than have to promise a lower price in exchange for a later deadline.
I always felt bad for my PM in these cases, because I understood the stress and the dilemma. It's not too different a position than the developers themselves are put into when the PM is the incompetent one.
Nowadays (at my ex-employer) there's always a representative of the development department included in negotiations, and he makes sure that any promises are evaluated for feasability before any contracts are signed.
I thought it was "hooah", not "hoorah". And I don't think it's exclusive to Marines either. I have a friend in the Army and he brought back a whole slew of such sayings when he came back on leave. Among them were "hooah" and "high speed" (read: "pretty cool").
"Human readable" may not have been the most accurate phrase, but I think in the context of everything else I wrote, it was failry clear what I meant.
It is hard to look at a "large" C++ code listing and quickly get a good idea of the architecture of the program without reading and analyzing the entire listing. Ideally, a UML-ish algorithm expression language would allow this understanding to be achieved quicker by browsing through graph-type representations of the program at each of a few different levels. But as I said, there would be tradeoffs for achieving this level of documentation robustness (or as an old high school friend liked to call it, "robustity").
This doesn't really address the hyoptheticals of the original post.
Yes, UML tends to encumber things right now because so often it's the managers that use it without really knowing what it's for. Or the managers order the developers to use it always, even for projects that don't need that level of architecture (or micromanagement, depending on how it's used). Another part of the problem is that humans are relatively lazy by nature, and if we can skip that extra step of preparation and still get a reasonable result, we will do so.
However, the issue raised is whether we can turn that preparation step into at least an early development stage. Rather than having management hand down object level designs from on high, or forcing what appears to developers to be extra work with little reward, this would (theoretically) allow documentation and implementation simultaneously. The algorithm representation itself would be its own documentation.
Sounds great at first blush. Could mean less effort on documentation in later stages. But there is a problem. The languages we traditionally use for algorithm expression (i.e. Java, C++, Python, what-have-you) are tailored for just that: algorithm expression. This need not be in human readable form. Any program language must do this at minumum. When you start demanding more than vestigial documentation from the same medium, however, it can become belabored. The language must perform two functions, and it must perform them both well, or it will not be used. It's the nature of information that if you want to pack multiple dimensions of information into the same representation space, that the structure of the representation is going to become more complex. And odds are that the performance in either of the two dimensions will not be as high as they would be separately. That's the problem. Unless (and maybe even if) UML were rigorously revamped or re-created with this exact purpose in mind, odds are that the documentation ability of the language would not be as robust as we would like it, and more work would still be necessary at other stages. Simultaneously, the algorithmic expression capability would be similarly limited. For example, detailed logic would be very difficult to represent, and process-style algorithms (i.e. algorithms that don't lend themselves better to flowcharts than UML) will most likely be difficult to represent, and ugly when achieved.
It's a nice idea, but it seems to me like it's probably better to keep the implementation and the documentation relatively separate, so that the advantages of each can be fully realized without belaboring and limiting the use of one or the both.
Being a Bible-ist has nothing to do with being a Christian.
I'm sorry, you're right. Certain religions would rather rely on a single elderly elected official with a big hat to tell them what is right and what is wrong. That way, they don't have to be actively involved, and they don't have to be dedicated to an idea. If it goes out of fashion, the big-hat-man can just change it.
You are insufferably arrogant...
Why is it arrogant to believe I am right? I can't prove I'm right, and you can't prove I'm wrong. I have as much basis to believe that I am right about there being one truth as you do to believe there is not. I believe my interpretation is the one truth because I want it to be. You believe there is no one truth because you want to believe there is no one truth. And ultimately, there is no way for either of us to prove or convince anyone else that we are right unless they want to believe it. So what is the big fricking deal that I think I am right?
(which is nothing more or less than another set of peoples' interpretations of God's will) is more correct than my own.
Indeed I do think that my "interpretation" is more correct. If I didn't believe it was more correct, I wouldn't have any reason to believe it. I wouldn't intentionally believe something that I thought might be wrong. I pointed out what I see to be a logical inconsistency in the beliefs of certain people. What's wrong with that? Atheists do it to Christians all the time, (and vice versa). With all the concern about free speech and censorship and how important it is to disagree and debate things, it's amazing how badly society wants people like me to shut up and keep our ideas to ourselves.
Additionally, I don't see why everyone thinks it is so evil to think that other people are wrong. I could care less whether you think I'm wrong, unless you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that I'm wrong. I'm not trying to convert anyone, and I'm not trying to impose my views on anyone. For crap's sake, I said in another post that I could care less if homosexuality is legal. I don't care what other people choose to do, if they're honest with themselves about it. All I did was explain why I thought something doesn't make sense, and pleaded that it stop. Not a whole lot different from what you just did to me.
Unfortunately it has come to be the case in this nation that it is not P.C. to say you believe certain things are wrong. But only if you're Christian. It's okay if you're... oh... say, Muslim. It's very ironic that so many people are now being very careful not to sound anti-Muslim, but they have no problem attacking Christians, despite the fact that when you get down to the morals they teach, they're very, very much the same.
My guess is you are not a Christian, but I am going to ask you try and get inside my head for a minute and see things through the eyes of a Christian for moment. All that really means is taking on faith that the Bible is truth.
In Leviticus it's stated that being married doesn't prevent a man from taking concubines
The 10 commandments were meant to be Jewish law. There was not supposed to be any need for anything beyond that. The laws of Leviticus were given because the Jews kept insisting there were "loopholes". They didn't abide by the spirit of the law. So they needed things spelled out for them beyond what was just "right". They needed to know exactly what was illegal. As an example of this, in the New Testament Jesus talks about divorce. He says it is not really right. The Levitical laws allowed it because the people demanded it. My understanding is that the concubines thing is like that. From what I remember, none of the famous righteous people had concubines, just possibly multiple wives. Solomon had concubines late in life, but he was not righteous later in life.
I thought Abraham had tacit approval from God to sleep with Hagar?
I'm don't have my Bible handy at the moment, but from what I remember that's not correct.
I know quite a few polyamorous people.
Polyamorous is not polygamous. For the most part, polygamy isn't seen much outside the "communes" of the 60s, and rumors I've heard about Mormons.
Abraham himself was never directly punished, or sent to purgatory or hell.
Abrahams promise of innumerable descendants was his reward for being faithful when God told him to leave his homeland and travel to some other distant land. But later, Abraham's faith faltered. Sarah didn't think God could provide his promise through her, and she convinced Abraham of it too. So they tried to "force God's hand", and Abraham's punishment was that his promise was tarnished by the conflict among his descendants. Abraham recognized his sin though, and the rest of his life was righteous.
And don't you think it's kind of cruel to punish millions of descendents
A lot of people aren't going to like this, but the New Testament bears it out: Suffering on earth is part and parcel with the human experience. To quote scripture, "God is no respector of persons". Additionally, Jesus talks about how people aren't supposed to worry about a situation if there's nothing they can do about it. If you're a servant, that's unfortunate, but you should be the best servant you can nonetheless. The reason for this is that this life is not what God intended. Man sinned, changing the plan. Earth changed with it, and now we suffer. (See Genesis 1.) But we still have eternity to look forward to. And the idea is that the time we spend here, whether suffering or not, won't even be remembered by those who make it to heaven... So, what I was trying to get to is that with respect to salvation/religion/etc., strife in life shouldn't matter that much. The apostles' lives, and gruesome deaths, were all about that idea. While unfortunate, suffering in life has little or nothing to do with whether God likes you or not. In the Old Testament, there was not yet salvation. When they died, they had to wait for Jesus to come before they could go to heaven. (This is why Jesus went to "the heart of the earth" for 3 days before his ascension.) People were often rewarded or punished in life in the O.T. But now, we have salvation, and when our life is over, if we are righteous, we get our reward immediately.
Actually, polygamy isn't explicitly outruled anywhere in the Bible. Adultry is. If they're all married to you, I don't think it can be called adultry. Polygamy isn't socially accepted nowadays though.
And the "holy characters" that engaged in adultry, such as Abraham, were punished. His punishment was that the descendents of his illegitemate child (the Palestinians) would forever be in conflict with the descendants of his promised child (the Jews).
he wasnt saying it was a threat, but rather a positive to CONTROLLING the population, which is good
It was a list of threats, prefaced with the statement that "the human race is already in serious shape". If he doesn't consider homosexuality a threat, then it should be separate from the list.
christianity and the view of homosexuality is wrong are two different things.
I'll probably be labeled as a Troll for this, but I've got Karma to burn....
They shouldn't be. Especially not if you are scientifically-minded. Christianity is generally Bible-based. The Bible says very clearly in several places, both in the New Testament and the Old, that homosexuality is a sin. And I don't see how you can say that certain parts of the document that your faith is based on don't matter, or are wrong, or inapplicable, without completely discrediting the authority of the rest of the document, written by the same people, all supposedly inspired by God. Or maybe you believe that certain parts aren't inspired? But who decides which parts don't matter? And how do they decide? And on whose authority? You're cutting your own legs out from under you! It just doesn't make any sense. It's completely inconsistent. (And yes, I am aware of how many people I'm calling on the carpet here.)
Either take it as a whole, or don't take it at all. That's all I ask. The inconsistencies that some people see can be ironed out when taken in context of the whole. But you can't justify throwing out certain parts just because you don't like them. If you do, then fine, to each his own. But then your faith is not Bible-based, so don't pretend it is.
There was no mention of fear, nor any value judgement in the parent post.
Agreed. It was much more subtle.
Homosexuality was also not put forth as a danger to the human race.
The entire list was put forth as reasons why the human race is "in serious shape", according to him. The content of his section on homosexuality didn't support that though. Which means at least one of two things: It didn't belong in the list, or he was looking for a reason to put it on there.
*Begin Christian side-track*
While I believe it is morally wrong, and possibly dangerous to general moral values, that's quite a different issue. I don't believe it will harm the human race on that scale any more than other things I believe are wrong, such as, say, drunkenness, or extra- and pre-marital sex. I could care less whether it's socially acceptable, or whether it's legally acceptable, or whatever. People can do what they want as long as they're not hurting anyone else by it. And I am of the opinion that if someone isn't strong enough in their faith to resist the influence of people around them to do things they supposedly think are wrong, then they aren't really "saved" anyway. So, no I don't think it's hurting anyone. People who are "subverted" were already off-track, faith-wise. And if they just "made a mistake", I am fully confident that God would not let them just continue on that way without giving them a chance to rectify things.
Anyway, all this has nothing to do with whether it should be legal or socially acceptable or whatever. The fact of the matter is, it's a religious issue, so the government should probably butt out. (Although marriage in general is a religious issue too--think about that! If we make civil unions purely civil, then any pair (or more) of people who live together should be eligible for the benefits.)
The only thing that bothers me is when someone claims to be Christian, with their faith based on the Bible, but are homoesexual. In order to reconcile those things, they have to kind of ignore several parts of scripture. And if you can just declare some parts of scripture to be not applicable, then why in the world would any of the rest of it be required? If you're going to say you believe the Bible, then discounting parts of it kind of cuts the proverbial legs out from under you.
*End Christian side-track*
But he included homosexuality among threats to the continued proliferation of the human race. Which implies he thinks it is dangerous.
The placement of homosexuality on this list seems inconsistent with the other things. He mentions it could be an evolutionary population control mechanism. How could a control mechanism contribute to the extinction of the human race? Unless the evolutionary process that brought it about somehow magically disappeared before it could remove it when it was no longer needed.
So no, he didn't describe homophobia. But he put it on a list with other "threats" to the human race, and then failed to really justify it's place in that list. Which, to me, does imply that he's kind of looking for a justification for something.
As a disclaimer, I am a Christian, of the opinion that homosexuality is wrong. But I could care less if other people do it. It's not hurting me any.
I'm not sure how you can claim that actual scientific investigation for relatively beneficent causes such as making sure we don't kill ourselves off by abusing the earth is junk science. What about all the "research" out there sponsored by the big corporations that "prove" that their pollution isn't a big deal. Is that reliable?
Whoever wrote the article the parent cited obviously has no idea what he is talking about. No doubt he has read many articles about research on both sides of the issue. But it appears he then took his far-reaching arithmetic skills and high-school chemistry education and applied it for the purposes of critiquing research performed by people who most likely have doctorates in their respective fields, and most likely know more math and chemistry than this guy can fit in his head.
Throwing around pretty percentages and ratios may make you look smart to the gullible morons out there who don't know how to think for themselves. But anyone who made it out of college, or even high-school, with a decent education--and even more importantly a good sense of what they do not know--should be able to recognize that this guy is way out of his league.
Excellent points. I was going to make much the same response, but luckily I read your post first and avoided being redundant.
I think it's worth pointing out that, since society can generally agree that real violence should be avoided or prevented, and that children are impressionable, that we might just have some duty, to protect society in general, to make sure that our impressionable children don't have access to violence-inspired materials until they have a)stable emotions, b)reliable self-control, c)a matured ability to distinguish reality from fantasy, d)a matured understanding of empathy and the consequences of their actions.
I mean, we can agree it's not a good idea, in general, to let kids drink without parental supervision, or to smoke, or to drive. And we can agree that even adults who engage in real violence should be prosecuted because they become a danger not only to themselves but to the rest of us. Why can't we agree that media that glorifies these acts, and many that are more deplorable, should be the restricted as much as possible to the realm of parental supervision?
Children in general are not mature enough psychologically to deal with this stuff in a normal way. We should let the parents decide how mature their children are, and if they can handle the material maturely.
Insightful??? Read-the-freaking-article before you make wise-crack comments, and especially before you mod them up. It was specifically the chirping effect of clapping sounds that was recognized in 1998. The "surprising sounds" in general have been known for a long time.
I'd propose that food, clothing, and shelter are life. Economy is easier life.
I would put it to you that gas is not only cheaper, it's also cleaner than many of the alternatives.
The main alternative is electricity. Electricity can be generated in a myriad of different ways. Oil, however, is generated in one way: pulling it out of the ground and refining it. We will someday run out of oil, and prices will continue to climb as we approach that point, eventually surpassing the price of alternatives. (Some estimates put that point at 100 years in the Middle East, assuming production doesn't continue to accelerate as it has in the past.) We're not just someday going to "run out" of electricity, because if necessary we can spread its generation across hundreds of methods and locations, minimizing extensive damage arising from any one method. And as far as battery disposal, I don't see how it could be much more difficult to implement a battery disposal/recycling program like the current tire disposal/recycling they have in many places.
Heaven save us from people who want to talk about the Greater Good. Especially those who don't always stop and look at the unintended consequences and costs which are tied to the reforms they demand.
If no one ever talks about making things better, then nothing will ever get done. The danger of "unintended consequences" has been used to discourage the optimistic for ages. Yes, they should be investigated. Anyone who made sweeping changes without investigating those things would be an idiot (please supress obvious comments about certain world leaders). If we change, bad things might happen. If we don't, bad things will happen. I'd prefer to take my chances with change if it might also improve things.
That was exactly my point. At the risk of sounding anti-capitalistic: everyone is so freaking concerned about money in this country! I've got nothing against capitalism in general. But there has evolved an idea in this country that the ability to pay for things is a basic right. You have the right to be able to pay for your necessities (food, shelter, etc.), not a direct right to necessities. I don't agree with that. I do believe there are certain things that are more important than protecting some CEO's right to amass a fortune. If the cars that CEO is responsible for producing are destroying the ozone layer, then he should be required to invest some of the massive profit he has made at the expense of the planet, back into its restoration: by researching and implementing alternative energy solutions.
Why should Hamish furniture salesmen share the cost of your broadband Internet use?
The same reason that I pay for the street lights and the roadwork, and the fire hydrants on Hamish's street, and he for mine. We very well may be moving into an era where connectivity becomes as needful as the transportation system, electric grid, and running water.
In short, in both respects, I'm talking about the greater good. There are things that are more important than the preservation of wealth. If you don't want to make sacrifices from what you've already earned, then fine. But just because you made a profit in the past, that doesn't mean you have a right to continue making a profit.
Because like it or not, it's still the most efficient/economic method of powering vehicles in a country where average travel distances are large.
It's only the most efficient because the automotive companies only started trying to research alternatives within the past few years. I was more referring to the total lack of impetus to move technology forward to even see if we can make things better. The reason we don't have it is because there was no funding for research. Because the companies were making money just fine the way they were, until oil prices started to skyrocket again a few yeas back and "alternative energy" finally hit the mainstream media, and people started to become aware of how much money they are throwing away. It's not a whole lot different from the problem we have here of corporations doing absolutely everything they can to keep from having to spend money on pollution prevention/cleanup. Yes, it's better than many other places, but we have the technology to fix it, they just don't want to spend the money. The point was, it was only until a few years ago, when the contrary became obvious, that the automotive companies were saying straight to the media that there was no viable alternative to oil and that they firmly believed that the alternatives other people were researching would fall flat. They had no desire to make an improvement that didn't directly affect their bottom line. Only now people are looking for better mileage and more eco-friendly cars, and it is starting to hit their bottom line. Which is why the American auto companies are finally putting money into researching hybrids.
Because that's not their job
Why isn't it their job? What is the government's job? We (well, some of us) also say the government's job is not to make sure that everyone has good health care that doesn't have prohibitive costs. In Europe they decided exactly the opposite. And look at how much better their health care system is than ours. Yeah, they pay higher taxes. But guess what? When you need that emergency bypass operation, you don't get a multi-thousand-dollar bill when it's done that you can't afford. But, oh we couldn't do that here. Because the insurance companies would be up in arms, threatening to stop campaign donations if a politician supported something like that. Let me tell you, I'd rather pay a tax that I knew was going to help someone get health care than to syphon money into an insurance company who won't even completely cover the healthcare costs that I have.
Granted internet access isn't the same as health care. But there have been studies done recently showing that more and more business that used to be available offline is going online, and it's even been shown that many services that used to be solely offline are now solely online. In America, it's the way business is going, and people without internet access are going to be at more and more of a disadvantage as time goes on. It seems to me it will soon be a reasonable service to provide. Or at least a regulatable service like water and power.
building multi-billion dollar playgrounds for spoiled millionares
I'm not even going to get into the economic benefits to the city/state of having professional sports. It makes everyone's lives better because it's more money flowing through the area.
It's not "free", the government raises taxes to pay for it.
Well, if the people don't want to pay for it, then they should be the ones objecting. My argument still stands that the complaints of a corporation losing some profit shouldn't cause the blockage of a law that benefits the citizens if the citizens support it.
It's important to note that a big part of this conservatism is in the corporate aspect of society. The U.S. has many well-established industries that are integral to our economy. And they, instead of embracing new technology and making the most out of them, don't want to bet the company on changing their business model which has worked for decades. And since they're integral to the economy, the government is scared to force them to evolve with the times, for fear they will fail and hurt the country as a whole. Japan, whose entire government and economy had to be "rebooted" earlier in this century, has a huge advantage over us in that respect. They know an awful lot about moving consistently forward.
For examples, just look to the telecom and automotive industries. Why are American cars still dependent on oil? Why, for crap's sake, is it not okay for the government to provide free wirless broadband access in Philadelphia? Because the corporations are afraid to give way to advancement and try something new. I'm pretty sure there are not many people in Philly who would not like to have free wireless internet, but they don't get a say because some corporation doesn't like it.
If you ask me, businesses will be the only first-class citizens in this nation very soon. Just look how much sway they hold just by saying to the government "you can't do that, it will hurt our profit margins." For crap's sake, sink or swim. Evolve, or become extinct. Japan is evolving. We are not.
Not everyone's parents let them stay for free even if they're making money.
I can honestly say I never had this kind of disposable income. Even for the 3 years in college when I was working 30 hours a week, having my tuition taken care of by loans, scholarships, and reimbursements from my employer, and still living at home.
And why? Because I paid my parents rent, paid for my phone line, cell phone, and for part of the power bill, since my computer was running 24/7. Basically anything beyond the actual shelter and regular meals, I paid for. This started back when I got my first job at 16, and they gradually gave more stuff over to my responsibility as my wage increased. Of course they also made it clear that if I really had a money problem, they would help me out.
And I value that, because it made me a much more conscious spender once I did move out. I've never really had a financial crisis because when emergencies came up, my credit rating and spending habits were good enough that I had plenty of room to charge it. And then I had the discipline to pay it off ASAP.
My sister, on the other hand, didn't get a job till she graduated high school, and then moved out very shortly after, taking my parents' car with her for ultra-cheap. Now, 2 years later, she's in financial trouble and will probably have to move back home.
This is by far not an aboslute rule, but it is a trend that I have noticed. And it seems rather intuitive to me. When parents require their kids to be more financially responsible as they start making money, they usually end up being more responsible once they are truly independent.
Slashdot Mirror
No, all theories without proof are unprovable. This does not mean proof will never exist, and more importantly, this does not make them disprovable. If a theory is neither provable nor disprovable, then it is not a thoery, by the scientific definition of the word. It then lies firmly in the realm of philosophy. And as such, science should not be used to defend it, because it can't. But also, science should not be used to attack it, also because it can't.
Science should get involved only when specific claims that a "believer" makes are provable or disprovable. Scientifically proving or disproving the general existence of some random deity is an exercise in futility.
Whether it is worthwhile to believe anything that is unprovable is a question each person must ask themselves.
All I will say is that many great minds believed things that there was no proof for. Newton believed that normal chemical processes could transform one element into another (i.e. alchemy, lead into gold, etc.) Einstein believed that quantum mechanics was wrong, even as he continued to investigate and break down all the evidence he thought would support his opinion. The fact that someone holds an unprovable belief doesn't make them any less intelligent, or any less of a scientist.
But you can't prove the global absence of a god. Remember that the deity in question (and indeed most other deities) supposedly exists outside the laws of physics that we currently understand. You can prove that we can't detect its presence, but you can't prove its absence. Not until we understand 100% of all physics that governs the universe down to its truly elemental units.
You can disprove certain claims of some people who believe in a god, but that is not what you're talking about.
Since it is currently scientifically unknowable whether or not a god exists outside understood physics, the debate of whether a god exists should be considered a philosophical one, not a scientific one. A great number of both Christians and Atheists would do well to remember that. I do not consider my faith in God to be a theory. I know it can't be proven. It's a belief. A philosophy. All that matters is that it is not currently provably false.
all theories without proof are, well, as you say, essentially trolls
I think you have a misunderstanding of how theories work. A theory is something that can be rigorously tested, and potentially disproved. Very few, if any, theories are ever proven true. Most are just accepted when it is shown there is no known evidence to the contrary. If you hold the opinion that harboring a belief which is untestable is a waste of time and effort, then the only viable "religion" is agnosticism not atheism.
I don't hold that opinion. I think philosophy is worthwhile, if for no other reason than that it generally incourages useful introspection.
In my experience it is usually only a tiny portion of believers of a given religion that "hates you or wants to attack you for your belief". Please don't blame the religion. Those people are responsible for their own actions, which are generally at least not sanctioned and at most condemned by tthe religions they claim to subscribe to. Just because there are a lot of people who claim to subscribe to that religion doesn't mean they all want to attack other beliefs.
I'm comfortable enough with my faith that when someone tells me they don't believe the same way and aren't interested in hearing about it that I let it be. If they don't believe it, they don't believe it. It's not like I can prove them wrong. I don't feel the need to try to tear them down. Those who do are a tiny minority whom the rest of us are terribly ashamed to be undeservingly associated with.
Atheists/agnostics have the same type of fanatic devotees who are obsessed with tearing down people's beliefs. A number of them regularly post on /., but are rarely modded Trolls like their religious counterparts are.
If you are positive you want to do something for a long time (ie a career) then you should have the ability to learn about that career at your own pace given the materials available.
Of course. This should go without saying. If you don't have the ability to do this, then you will become largely unemployable very shortly after graduation. One or two companies will realize that they've received a lump of clay too stiff to mold into what they need, and will dump you. The third company will see on your resume that you've been out of school for 2 or three years, gone through 2 jobs, and not picked up any new skills or technologies. They won't need to waste a year of wages on you to see that you're unmoldable.
But that doesn't mean school is useless by any means. It gives you a starting point. It gives you a bit of direction. This is the handholding that not everyone needs. But a lot of people do. I can learn great on my own, pretty much regardless what I study. But it has taken me a long time to learn how to decide what is worth learning. My school gave me a direction. The ABET-accredited curriculum ensured that the things that I was studying were things that employers would want me to know. Once that basis was laid, I was able to branch off on my own without wasting my time on stuff that wasn't going to actually benefit me at all.
Additionally, school provides a framework that you must work within. It exposes you to the idea of personal responsibility, both intellectual and financial. It exposes you to time-extended projects and cooperative projects. All in a monitored environment where, if you're having problems, they can help you, rather than fire you. It would be wonderful if every company was as freeform, trusting, and progressive as Google, or Pixar. But that's not how most of the world works, and it never will be. Most of us need to know how to work within the framework. And even at those "ideal" companies, you need to have the skills I mentioned at the top of this paragraph, or you're going to be useless to them.
School is an introduction. A way to learn to swim before being thrown into the ocean. Not everyone needs this. But most people need to at least be told which direction it is to shore.
I know that the situation there wasn't typical, but I also know it's not totally rare either. I've heard similar stories from friends at other companies, especially due to growing pains. This was the case with us. Most of the "managers" were so-so engineers who decided their true calling was management, and were moved up and placed over new developers. They either had no real experience in leadership, or were in the process of getting their Masters and eager to indiscriminately apply all the shiny new book smarts they were getting. From what I hear from friends still employed there things have gotten better.
It's not always the PM's fault. Some companies, like my ex-employer until not long before I left, do not allow the PM to have contact with the customer directly. Often the sale is made first, including guaranteed features and delivery date, and then this information is handed down to the PM. There's not much the PM can do about it once he realizes the timeline is impossible except beg his boss to get a renegotiation going. Unfortunately the company is usually willing rather to sacrifice the good treatment of their own employees rather than have to promise a lower price in exchange for a later deadline.
I always felt bad for my PM in these cases, because I understood the stress and the dilemma. It's not too different a position than the developers themselves are put into when the PM is the incompetent one.
Nowadays (at my ex-employer) there's always a representative of the development department included in negotiations, and he makes sure that any promises are evaluated for feasability before any contracts are signed.
I thought it was "hooah", not "hoorah". And I don't think it's exclusive to Marines either. I have a friend in the Army and he brought back a whole slew of such sayings when he came back on leave. Among them were "hooah" and "high speed" (read: "pretty cool").
It is hard to look at a "large" C++ code listing and quickly get a good idea of the architecture of the program without reading and analyzing the entire listing. Ideally, a UML-ish algorithm expression language would allow this understanding to be achieved quicker by browsing through graph-type representations of the program at each of a few different levels. But as I said, there would be tradeoffs for achieving this level of documentation robustness (or as an old high school friend liked to call it, "robustity").
Yes, UML tends to encumber things right now because so often it's the managers that use it without really knowing what it's for. Or the managers order the developers to use it always, even for projects that don't need that level of architecture (or micromanagement, depending on how it's used). Another part of the problem is that humans are relatively lazy by nature, and if we can skip that extra step of preparation and still get a reasonable result, we will do so.
However, the issue raised is whether we can turn that preparation step into at least an early development stage. Rather than having management hand down object level designs from on high, or forcing what appears to developers to be extra work with little reward, this would (theoretically) allow documentation and implementation simultaneously. The algorithm representation itself would be its own documentation.
Sounds great at first blush. Could mean less effort on documentation in later stages. But there is a problem. The languages we traditionally use for algorithm expression (i.e. Java, C++, Python, what-have-you) are tailored for just that: algorithm expression. This need not be in human readable form. Any program language must do this at minumum. When you start demanding more than vestigial documentation from the same medium, however, it can become belabored. The language must perform two functions, and it must perform them both well, or it will not be used. It's the nature of information that if you want to pack multiple dimensions of information into the same representation space, that the structure of the representation is going to become more complex. And odds are that the performance in either of the two dimensions will not be as high as they would be separately. That's the problem. Unless (and maybe even if) UML were rigorously revamped or re-created with this exact purpose in mind, odds are that the documentation ability of the language would not be as robust as we would like it, and more work would still be necessary at other stages. Simultaneously, the algorithmic expression capability would be similarly limited. For example, detailed logic would be very difficult to represent, and process-style algorithms (i.e. algorithms that don't lend themselves better to flowcharts than UML) will most likely be difficult to represent, and ugly when achieved.
It's a nice idea, but it seems to me like it's probably better to keep the implementation and the documentation relatively separate, so that the advantages of each can be fully realized without belaboring and limiting the use of one or the both.
I'm sorry, you're right. Certain religions would rather rely on a single elderly elected official with a big hat to tell them what is right and what is wrong. That way, they don't have to be actively involved, and they don't have to be dedicated to an idea. If it goes out of fashion, the big-hat-man can just change it.
You are insufferably arrogant...
Why is it arrogant to believe I am right? I can't prove I'm right, and you can't prove I'm wrong. I have as much basis to believe that I am right about there being one truth as you do to believe there is not. I believe my interpretation is the one truth because I want it to be. You believe there is no one truth because you want to believe there is no one truth. And ultimately, there is no way for either of us to prove or convince anyone else that we are right unless they want to believe it. So what is the big fricking deal that I think I am right?
(which is nothing more or less than another set of peoples' interpretations of God's will) is more correct than my own.
Indeed I do think that my "interpretation" is more correct. If I didn't believe it was more correct, I wouldn't have any reason to believe it. I wouldn't intentionally believe something that I thought might be wrong. I pointed out what I see to be a logical inconsistency in the beliefs of certain people. What's wrong with that? Atheists do it to Christians all the time, (and vice versa). With all the concern about free speech and censorship and how important it is to disagree and debate things, it's amazing how badly society wants people like me to shut up and keep our ideas to ourselves.
Additionally, I don't see why everyone thinks it is so evil to think that other people are wrong. I could care less whether you think I'm wrong, unless you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that I'm wrong. I'm not trying to convert anyone, and I'm not trying to impose my views on anyone. For crap's sake, I said in another post that I could care less if homosexuality is legal. I don't care what other people choose to do, if they're honest with themselves about it. All I did was explain why I thought something doesn't make sense, and pleaded that it stop. Not a whole lot different from what you just did to me.
Unfortunately it has come to be the case in this nation that it is not P.C. to say you believe certain things are wrong. But only if you're Christian. It's okay if you're... oh... say, Muslim. It's very ironic that so many people are now being very careful not to sound anti-Muslim, but they have no problem attacking Christians, despite the fact that when you get down to the morals they teach, they're very, very much the same.
In Leviticus it's stated that being married doesn't prevent a man from taking concubines
The 10 commandments were meant to be Jewish law. There was not supposed to be any need for anything beyond that. The laws of Leviticus were given because the Jews kept insisting there were "loopholes". They didn't abide by the spirit of the law. So they needed things spelled out for them beyond what was just "right". They needed to know exactly what was illegal. As an example of this, in the New Testament Jesus talks about divorce. He says it is not really right. The Levitical laws allowed it because the people demanded it. My understanding is that the concubines thing is like that. From what I remember, none of the famous righteous people had concubines, just possibly multiple wives. Solomon had concubines late in life, but he was not righteous later in life.
I thought Abraham had tacit approval from God to sleep with Hagar?
I'm don't have my Bible handy at the moment, but from what I remember that's not correct.
I know quite a few polyamorous people.
Polyamorous is not polygamous. For the most part, polygamy isn't seen much outside the "communes" of the 60s, and rumors I've heard about Mormons.
Abraham himself was never directly punished, or sent to purgatory or hell.
Abrahams promise of innumerable descendants was his reward for being faithful when God told him to leave his homeland and travel to some other distant land. But later, Abraham's faith faltered. Sarah didn't think God could provide his promise through her, and she convinced Abraham of it too. So they tried to "force God's hand", and Abraham's punishment was that his promise was tarnished by the conflict among his descendants. Abraham recognized his sin though, and the rest of his life was righteous.
And don't you think it's kind of cruel to punish millions of descendents
A lot of people aren't going to like this, but the New Testament bears it out: Suffering on earth is part and parcel with the human experience. To quote scripture, "God is no respector of persons". Additionally, Jesus talks about how people aren't supposed to worry about a situation if there's nothing they can do about it. If you're a servant, that's unfortunate, but you should be the best servant you can nonetheless. The reason for this is that this life is not what God intended. Man sinned, changing the plan. Earth changed with it, and now we suffer. (See Genesis 1.) But we still have eternity to look forward to. And the idea is that the time we spend here, whether suffering or not, won't even be remembered by those who make it to heaven... So, what I was trying to get to is that with respect to salvation/religion/etc., strife in life shouldn't matter that much. The apostles' lives, and gruesome deaths, were all about that idea. While unfortunate, suffering in life has little or nothing to do with whether God likes you or not. In the Old Testament, there was not yet salvation. When they died, they had to wait for Jesus to come before they could go to heaven. (This is why Jesus went to "the heart of the earth" for 3 days before his ascension.) People were often rewarded or punished in life in the O.T. But now, we have salvation, and when our life is over, if we are righteous, we get our reward immediately.
And you think I'm wrong for that. So we both think some things are wrong that the other doesn't. Big whoop.
And the "holy characters" that engaged in adultry, such as Abraham, were punished. His punishment was that the descendents of his illegitemate child (the Palestinians) would forever be in conflict with the descendants of his promised child (the Jews).
It was a list of threats, prefaced with the statement that "the human race is already in serious shape". If he doesn't consider homosexuality a threat, then it should be separate from the list.
christianity and the view of homosexuality is wrong are two different things.
I'll probably be labeled as a Troll for this, but I've got Karma to burn....
They shouldn't be. Especially not if you are scientifically-minded. Christianity is generally Bible-based. The Bible says very clearly in several places, both in the New Testament and the Old, that homosexuality is a sin. And I don't see how you can say that certain parts of the document that your faith is based on don't matter, or are wrong, or inapplicable, without completely discrediting the authority of the rest of the document, written by the same people, all supposedly inspired by God. Or maybe you believe that certain parts aren't inspired? But who decides which parts don't matter? And how do they decide? And on whose authority? You're cutting your own legs out from under you! It just doesn't make any sense. It's completely inconsistent. (And yes, I am aware of how many people I'm calling on the carpet here.)
Either take it as a whole, or don't take it at all. That's all I ask. The inconsistencies that some people see can be ironed out when taken in context of the whole. But you can't justify throwing out certain parts just because you don't like them. If you do, then fine, to each his own. But then your faith is not Bible-based, so don't pretend it is.
Agreed. It was much more subtle.
Homosexuality was also not put forth as a danger to the human race.
The entire list was put forth as reasons why the human race is "in serious shape", according to him. The content of his section on homosexuality didn't support that though. Which means at least one of two things: It didn't belong in the list, or he was looking for a reason to put it on there.
*Begin Christian side-track* While I believe it is morally wrong, and possibly dangerous to general moral values, that's quite a different issue. I don't believe it will harm the human race on that scale any more than other things I believe are wrong, such as, say, drunkenness, or extra- and pre-marital sex. I could care less whether it's socially acceptable, or whether it's legally acceptable, or whatever. People can do what they want as long as they're not hurting anyone else by it. And I am of the opinion that if someone isn't strong enough in their faith to resist the influence of people around them to do things they supposedly think are wrong, then they aren't really "saved" anyway. So, no I don't think it's hurting anyone. People who are "subverted" were already off-track, faith-wise. And if they just "made a mistake", I am fully confident that God would not let them just continue on that way without giving them a chance to rectify things.
Anyway, all this has nothing to do with whether it should be legal or socially acceptable or whatever. The fact of the matter is, it's a religious issue, so the government should probably butt out. (Although marriage in general is a religious issue too--think about that! If we make civil unions purely civil, then any pair (or more) of people who live together should be eligible for the benefits.)
The only thing that bothers me is when someone claims to be Christian, with their faith based on the Bible, but are homoesexual. In order to reconcile those things, they have to kind of ignore several parts of scripture. And if you can just declare some parts of scripture to be not applicable, then why in the world would any of the rest of it be required? If you're going to say you believe the Bible, then discounting parts of it kind of cuts the proverbial legs out from under you. *End Christian side-track*
The placement of homosexuality on this list seems inconsistent with the other things. He mentions it could be an evolutionary population control mechanism. How could a control mechanism contribute to the extinction of the human race? Unless the evolutionary process that brought it about somehow magically disappeared before it could remove it when it was no longer needed.
So no, he didn't describe homophobia. But he put it on a list with other "threats" to the human race, and then failed to really justify it's place in that list. Which, to me, does imply that he's kind of looking for a justification for something.
As a disclaimer, I am a Christian, of the opinion that homosexuality is wrong. But I could care less if other people do it. It's not hurting me any.
I'm not sure how you can claim that actual scientific investigation for relatively beneficent causes such as making sure we don't kill ourselves off by abusing the earth is junk science. What about all the "research" out there sponsored by the big corporations that "prove" that their pollution isn't a big deal. Is that reliable?
Whoever wrote the article the parent cited obviously has no idea what he is talking about. No doubt he has read many articles about research on both sides of the issue. But it appears he then took his far-reaching arithmetic skills and high-school chemistry education and applied it for the purposes of critiquing research performed by people who most likely have doctorates in their respective fields, and most likely know more math and chemistry than this guy can fit in his head.
Throwing around pretty percentages and ratios may make you look smart to the gullible morons out there who don't know how to think for themselves. But anyone who made it out of college, or even high-school, with a decent education--and even more importantly a good sense of what they do not know--should be able to recognize that this guy is way out of his league.
I think it's worth pointing out that, since society can generally agree that real violence should be avoided or prevented, and that children are impressionable, that we might just have some duty, to protect society in general, to make sure that our impressionable children don't have access to violence-inspired materials until they have a)stable emotions, b)reliable self-control, c)a matured ability to distinguish reality from fantasy, d)a matured understanding of empathy and the consequences of their actions.
I mean, we can agree it's not a good idea, in general, to let kids drink without parental supervision, or to smoke, or to drive. And we can agree that even adults who engage in real violence should be prosecuted because they become a danger not only to themselves but to the rest of us. Why can't we agree that media that glorifies these acts, and many that are more deplorable, should be the restricted as much as possible to the realm of parental supervision?
Children in general are not mature enough psychologically to deal with this stuff in a normal way. We should let the parents decide how mature their children are, and if they can handle the material maturely.
Insightful??? Read-the-freaking-article before you make wise-crack comments, and especially before you mod them up. It was specifically the chirping effect of clapping sounds that was recognized in 1998. The "surprising sounds" in general have been known for a long time.
I'd propose that food, clothing, and shelter are life. Economy is easier life.
I would put it to you that gas is not only cheaper, it's also cleaner than many of the alternatives.
The main alternative is electricity. Electricity can be generated in a myriad of different ways. Oil, however, is generated in one way: pulling it out of the ground and refining it. We will someday run out of oil, and prices will continue to climb as we approach that point, eventually surpassing the price of alternatives. (Some estimates put that point at 100 years in the Middle East, assuming production doesn't continue to accelerate as it has in the past.) We're not just someday going to "run out" of electricity, because if necessary we can spread its generation across hundreds of methods and locations, minimizing extensive damage arising from any one method. And as far as battery disposal, I don't see how it could be much more difficult to implement a battery disposal/recycling program like the current tire disposal/recycling they have in many places.
Heaven save us from people who want to talk about the Greater Good. Especially those who don't always stop and look at the unintended consequences and costs which are tied to the reforms they demand.
If no one ever talks about making things better, then nothing will ever get done. The danger of "unintended consequences" has been used to discourage the optimistic for ages. Yes, they should be investigated. Anyone who made sweeping changes without investigating those things would be an idiot (please supress obvious comments about certain world leaders). If we change, bad things might happen. If we don't, bad things will happen. I'd prefer to take my chances with change if it might also improve things.
That was exactly my point. At the risk of sounding anti-capitalistic: everyone is so freaking concerned about money in this country! I've got nothing against capitalism in general. But there has evolved an idea in this country that the ability to pay for things is a basic right. You have the right to be able to pay for your necessities (food, shelter, etc.), not a direct right to necessities. I don't agree with that. I do believe there are certain things that are more important than protecting some CEO's right to amass a fortune. If the cars that CEO is responsible for producing are destroying the ozone layer, then he should be required to invest some of the massive profit he has made at the expense of the planet, back into its restoration: by researching and implementing alternative energy solutions.
Why should Hamish furniture salesmen share the cost of your broadband Internet use?
The same reason that I pay for the street lights and the roadwork, and the fire hydrants on Hamish's street, and he for mine. We very well may be moving into an era where connectivity becomes as needful as the transportation system, electric grid, and running water.
In short, in both respects, I'm talking about the greater good. There are things that are more important than the preservation of wealth. If you don't want to make sacrifices from what you've already earned, then fine. But just because you made a profit in the past, that doesn't mean you have a right to continue making a profit.
It's only the most efficient because the automotive companies only started trying to research alternatives within the past few years. I was more referring to the total lack of impetus to move technology forward to even see if we can make things better. The reason we don't have it is because there was no funding for research. Because the companies were making money just fine the way they were, until oil prices started to skyrocket again a few yeas back and "alternative energy" finally hit the mainstream media, and people started to become aware of how much money they are throwing away. It's not a whole lot different from the problem we have here of corporations doing absolutely everything they can to keep from having to spend money on pollution prevention/cleanup. Yes, it's better than many other places, but we have the technology to fix it, they just don't want to spend the money. The point was, it was only until a few years ago, when the contrary became obvious, that the automotive companies were saying straight to the media that there was no viable alternative to oil and that they firmly believed that the alternatives other people were researching would fall flat. They had no desire to make an improvement that didn't directly affect their bottom line. Only now people are looking for better mileage and more eco-friendly cars, and it is starting to hit their bottom line. Which is why the American auto companies are finally putting money into researching hybrids.
Because that's not their job
Why isn't it their job? What is the government's job? We (well, some of us) also say the government's job is not to make sure that everyone has good health care that doesn't have prohibitive costs. In Europe they decided exactly the opposite. And look at how much better their health care system is than ours. Yeah, they pay higher taxes. But guess what? When you need that emergency bypass operation, you don't get a multi-thousand-dollar bill when it's done that you can't afford. But, oh we couldn't do that here. Because the insurance companies would be up in arms, threatening to stop campaign donations if a politician supported something like that. Let me tell you, I'd rather pay a tax that I knew was going to help someone get health care than to syphon money into an insurance company who won't even completely cover the healthcare costs that I have.
Granted internet access isn't the same as health care. But there have been studies done recently showing that more and more business that used to be available offline is going online, and it's even been shown that many services that used to be solely offline are now solely online. In America, it's the way business is going, and people without internet access are going to be at more and more of a disadvantage as time goes on. It seems to me it will soon be a reasonable service to provide. Or at least a regulatable service like water and power.
building multi-billion dollar playgrounds for spoiled millionares
I'm not even going to get into the economic benefits to the city/state of having professional sports. It makes everyone's lives better because it's more money flowing through the area.
It's not "free", the government raises taxes to pay for it.
Well, if the people don't want to pay for it, then they should be the ones objecting. My argument still stands that the complaints of a corporation losing some profit shouldn't cause the blockage of a law that benefits the citizens if the citizens support it.
For examples, just look to the telecom and automotive industries. Why are American cars still dependent on oil? Why, for crap's sake, is it not okay for the government to provide free wirless broadband access in Philadelphia? Because the corporations are afraid to give way to advancement and try something new. I'm pretty sure there are not many people in Philly who would not like to have free wireless internet, but they don't get a say because some corporation doesn't like it.
If you ask me, businesses will be the only first-class citizens in this nation very soon. Just look how much sway they hold just by saying to the government "you can't do that, it will hurt our profit margins." For crap's sake, sink or swim. Evolve, or become extinct. Japan is evolving. We are not.
I can honestly say I never had this kind of disposable income. Even for the 3 years in college when I was working 30 hours a week, having my tuition taken care of by loans, scholarships, and reimbursements from my employer, and still living at home.
And why? Because I paid my parents rent, paid for my phone line, cell phone, and for part of the power bill, since my computer was running 24/7. Basically anything beyond the actual shelter and regular meals, I paid for. This started back when I got my first job at 16, and they gradually gave more stuff over to my responsibility as my wage increased. Of course they also made it clear that if I really had a money problem, they would help me out.
And I value that, because it made me a much more conscious spender once I did move out. I've never really had a financial crisis because when emergencies came up, my credit rating and spending habits were good enough that I had plenty of room to charge it. And then I had the discipline to pay it off ASAP.
My sister, on the other hand, didn't get a job till she graduated high school, and then moved out very shortly after, taking my parents' car with her for ultra-cheap. Now, 2 years later, she's in financial trouble and will probably have to move back home.
This is by far not an aboslute rule, but it is a trend that I have noticed. And it seems rather intuitive to me. When parents require their kids to be more financially responsible as they start making money, they usually end up being more responsible once they are truly independent.
Hmmm... Freudian slip?