Your only other option is the Conservatives, who would consider this measure as not going far enough and as for "sundry wars, the collapse of banking, big brother mentality, greed etc etc" - multiply by 2.
I suppose you could always vote Libdem - or your could just not vote (same thing, I guess).
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: democracy just doesn't work.
I do think it's a bit naive to blame politicians for the current economic mess, as if they were deliberately masterminding the whole thing on their own. Politicians are not driven by the good of the nation, they are driven by votes pure and simple - and it's because of our stupidity not theirs that we end up in the situations that we do.
I like what you have to say - but for one fatal flaw (Mwhahahaha etc.). God might appear, then to complete the proof the remaining 1% would be required to challenge him to prove that he is omnipotent - and therefore = God.
Then He be screwed - because hopefully one of the scientists will have the good sense to challenge him with an omnipotence paradox, at which point he'll admit he's not god and move to Finland.
No dependency on an external repository doesn't mean that there is no external repository. You can have one if you want (though that's a very CVS/SVN view)
Git repositories can operate like a cluster, where updates to the local repository are replicated between your repository and another one.
Is there a good reason to change I am missing?
Why not use CVS? (1) It's easier, (2) the intricate reasons why SVN is better than CVS are beyond the everyday use of developers and (3) all the tools you mention existed for CVS first.
I've moved to Git because I love the Guerilla Developer nature of it - that might not appeal to everyone.
Are you saying that a guy who gets up a 6am everyday and takes the bus to job where he works 8-10 hours of back breaking work for minimum wage and the guy who works on Wall Street and gets $250m for 4 hours pushing a few buttons and bending a few laws are being paid the true value of their work.
You might reasonably say that you're neither of these people - but are you truly worth what you're paid?
The amount you are paid is the base true value of your work (which is quite small) plus a highly inflated and subjective pseudo-value that your employer places on your work, more often than not to ensure that you don't sod off to some other company. It's not really fair that you should get that margin - and the government is being a lot more reasonable when it taxes you on your - if not ill-gotten - ill-deserved gains.
No, as an alternative let's just assume that you are a total idiot.
Don't read the word "Marxist" and then go into moron autopilot - read what I wrote, I didn't propose anything nor did I suggest that I believed anything.
If Obama were a Marxist (which is a laughable concept when you take the world view) then you wouldn't be paying tax, you would be returning that which you had stolen from the working classes.
And while we're on the subject I would definitely argue that a negative income tax isn't Marxist or Socialist - the idea was invented by Milton Friedman, the darling economist of those notorious lefties Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.
(Speaking from an outside-US position) I've been following this whole thing with great interest since the Obama/Clinton things started - and going back a bit I stayed up all night watching the Gore/Bush thing - so I'm not knocking it.
But do you not think it's a bit long in the tooth at this stage? It's been pretty much going for two years and when you think about it, all you are doing is selecting one individual from a list of 30 or so - surely you don't need 2 years to make that decision.
Maybe some work needs to be done on limiting the scale of the thing - both in terms of time and of money, which is verging on the ridiculous too.
There's no way they should accept money from that evil group. Through their books they have corrupted generations and exploited them in pursuit of money. They have taken the minds of children and warped them into obsessive cultists...
Wait, hang on - silly me. I read the article backwards.
"Your honour I would like to prove my point with this simple demonstration. The link you see on my screen appears harmless enough, but when I click it...."
"Jesus H Christ! What the fuck is that?! Turn it off! Turn it off! Case dismissed! Clear the court room!"
I wouldn't waste my time. I couldn't give a monkeys what other people drink - maybe when I was younger and didn't know any better I might have. But that's just childish - and says a lot about you and the company you keep that you would even think that people would behave like that.
The fact is, I am not a beer snob; I just don't like beer snobs who think Guinness is the only good beer in the world and sneer at those who don't feel beer should be opaque.
Of course, you're a snob. Your GP posting agreed wholeheartedly with someone who made condescending remarks about Guinness - and you followed that up with more drivel about homebrew.
Pale lagers sell well in the US because that's what Americans (and lots of people in other countries) really like. And if I am in the mood for a pale, non pils lager, I'll drink Bud.
I drink Guinness now and again, too, but realize there are better stouts out there, both commercial and homebrew. It's just the supercilious Guiness drinker I don't like.
Well aren't you the fucking hero. Who put you in charge of what's good and what's better anyway? Next time your drink Guinness I hope you choke on it - it's too good for the likes of you.
Shit! How could I have been so wrong all my life! Thanks for opening my eyes. Nary a drop of that evil black stuff will pass my lips ever again, it's homebrew from here on in.
One question, though, how long does it actually take before I'm a fully fledged member of the "Association Of Home Brewers and Other Tedious Arseholes That Sit At Home On Their Own Smugly Pontificating About How They Know Everything Society"?
However, our objective is not to protect them from the nasties on the Internet, rather teach them how to deal with it. We have had a situation such as you describe and I have to say my daughter dealt with it as I would expect her to - she was open about the incident and we were able to sort it out.
Probably. However, I would consider the opposite, assuming you child is safe because of the censored feed, to be child abuse.
It's exactly the same as letting your child play on the street. My kids play out on the street (in a cul-de-sac) every day, but we keep a close eye on them - that's what you're supposed to do. They know to get off the road if a car comes down, they look out for each other and they know how to deal with strangers. This Australian idea is the same as leaving the kids in the front yard with the gates closed while you go out for the day. It's negligent parenting at best and it certainly should not be encouraged by the Government.
The system we have in our home is simple, the computer is in the kitchen where everyone else is. To my mind that is the only sensible way to keep your children safe on the Internet. If they come across something that is unsuitable then we talk about it. That means they know what's dangerous and how to deal with it, and we know what they're getting involved in.
Blocking access is just wrapping your kids in cotton wool - and when you can't do that any more, they suddenly become very vulnerable.
Real immigration reform? Social Security? Healthcare?
Your assumption is that people want this (I would) - but that's not necessarily the mainstream view, or more importantly the mainstream electoral view.
Younger people may be vocal in their support for these social justice issues, but they are not the individuals who actually vote. As we know, older people vote in much larger numbers and more conservatively - so what do you have? A conservative government.
To paraphrase the GP: "Enough older people wanted something, and it has happened, by way of democracy."
No point in being cynical about it, you have to get out and vote (which I'm sure you do).
Slashdot Mirror
Your only other option is the Conservatives, who would consider this measure as not going far enough and as for "sundry wars, the collapse of banking, big brother mentality, greed etc etc" - multiply by 2.
I suppose you could always vote Libdem - or your could just not vote (same thing, I guess).
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: democracy just doesn't work.
I do think it's a bit naive to blame politicians for the current economic mess, as if they were deliberately masterminding the whole thing on their own. Politicians are not driven by the good of the nation, they are driven by votes pure and simple - and it's because of our stupidity not theirs that we end up in the situations that we do.
Surely we should be united against the common enemy.
I like what you have to say - but for one fatal flaw (Mwhahahaha etc.). God might appear, then to complete the proof the remaining 1% would be required to challenge him to prove that he is omnipotent - and therefore = God.
Then He be screwed - because hopefully one of the scientists will have the good sense to challenge him with an omnipotence paradox, at which point he'll admit he's not god and move to Finland.
...instead of a straight up bookie.
Scientific proof must emerge by 31st Dec 2009, to confirm his omnipresence in order for bets to be deemed winners.
I would sell my house and bet it all against this, that would be the easiest 25% sucker money ever.
No dependency on an external repository doesn't mean that there is no external repository. You can have one if you want (though that's a very CVS/SVN view)
Git repositories can operate like a cluster, where updates to the local repository are replicated between your repository and another one.
Is there a good reason to change I am missing?
Why not use CVS? (1) It's easier, (2) the intricate reasons why SVN is better than CVS are beyond the everyday use of developers and (3) all the tools you mention existed for CVS first.
I've moved to Git because I love the Guerilla Developer nature of it - that might not appeal to everyone.
"who earned it" - according to who?
Are you saying that a guy who gets up a 6am everyday and takes the bus to job where he works 8-10 hours of back breaking work for minimum wage and the guy who works on Wall Street and gets $250m for 4 hours pushing a few buttons and bending a few laws are being paid the true value of their work.
You might reasonably say that you're neither of these people - but are you truly worth what you're paid?
The amount you are paid is the base true value of your work (which is quite small) plus a highly inflated and subjective pseudo-value that your employer places on your work, more often than not to ensure that you don't sod off to some other company. It's not really fair that you should get that margin - and the government is being a lot more reasonable when it taxes you on your - if not ill-gotten - ill-deserved gains.
No, as an alternative let's just assume that you are a total idiot.
Don't read the word "Marxist" and then go into moron autopilot - read what I wrote, I didn't propose anything nor did I suggest that I believed anything.
If Obama were a Marxist (which is a laughable concept when you take the world view) then you wouldn't be paying tax, you would be returning that which you had stolen from the working classes.
And while we're on the subject I would definitely argue that a negative income tax isn't Marxist or Socialist - the idea was invented by Milton Friedman, the darling economist of those notorious lefties Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.
How about curtailing it a little next time lads?
(Speaking from an outside-US position) I've been following this whole thing with great interest since the Obama/Clinton things started - and going back a bit I stayed up all night watching the Gore/Bush thing - so I'm not knocking it.
But do you not think it's a bit long in the tooth at this stage? It's been pretty much going for two years and when you think about it, all you are doing is selecting one individual from a list of 30 or so - surely you don't need 2 years to make that decision.
Maybe some work needs to be done on limiting the scale of the thing - both in terms of time and of money, which is verging on the ridiculous too.
See you in 2 years time...
There's no way they should accept money from that evil group. Through their books they have corrupted generations and exploited them in pursuit of money. They have taken the minds of children and warped them into obsessive cultists...
Wait, hang on - silly me. I read the article backwards.
"Your honour I would like to prove my point with this simple demonstration. The link you see on my screen appears harmless enough, but when I click it...."
"Jesus H Christ! What the fuck is that?! Turn it off! Turn it off! Case dismissed! Clear the court room!"
When you see guys drinking Bud at your local pub.
I wouldn't waste my time. I couldn't give a monkeys what other people drink - maybe when I was younger and didn't know any better I might have. But that's just childish - and says a lot about you and the company you keep that you would even think that people would behave like that.
The fact is, I am not a beer snob; I just don't like beer snobs who think Guinness is the only good beer in the world and sneer at those who don't feel beer should be opaque.
Of course, you're a snob. Your GP posting agreed wholeheartedly with someone who made condescending remarks about Guinness - and you followed that up with more drivel about homebrew.
Pale lagers sell well in the US because that's what Americans (and lots of people in other countries) really like. And if I am in the mood for a pale, non pils lager, I'll drink Bud.
I drink Guinness now and again, too, but realize there are better stouts out there, both commercial and homebrew. It's just the supercilious Guiness drinker I don't like.
Well aren't you the fucking hero. Who put you in charge of what's good and what's better anyway? Next time your drink Guinness I hope you choke on it - it's too good for the likes of you.
Shit! How could I have been so wrong all my life! Thanks for opening my eyes. Nary a drop of that evil black stuff will pass my lips ever again, it's homebrew from here on in.
One question, though, how long does it actually take before I'm a fully fledged member of the "Association Of Home Brewers and Other Tedious Arseholes That Sit At Home On Their Own Smugly Pontificating About How They Know Everything Society"?
Get over yourself.
It is in its hole.
And that's all I'm saying on that.
Brewers have been doing this for centuries.
...them housey thingumies is up on the back field again."
"Boy, fetch my shotgun."
Stupid.
I really don't think the RIAA need to get involved in this one.
After the success of last month's "Talk Like A Pirate Day", this is just Microsoft just trying to cash in on the whole pirate thing.
Parents can't be expected to shell out for every single pirate related holiday. Enough is enough.
Anyway, don't Microsoft already have April 1st.
That's a fair point.
However, our objective is not to protect them from the nasties on the Internet, rather teach them how to deal with it. We have had a situation such as you describe and I have to say my daughter dealt with it as I would expect her to - she was open about the incident and we were able to sort it out.
Probably. However, I would consider the opposite, assuming you child is safe because of the censored feed, to be child abuse.
It's exactly the same as letting your child play on the street. My kids play out on the street (in a cul-de-sac) every day, but we keep a close eye on them - that's what you're supposed to do. They know to get off the road if a car comes down, they look out for each other and they know how to deal with strangers. This Australian idea is the same as leaving the kids in the front yard with the gates closed while you go out for the day. It's negligent parenting at best and it certainly should not be encouraged by the Government.
I would not be in favour of this at all.
The system we have in our home is simple, the computer is in the kitchen where everyone else is. To my mind that is the only sensible way to keep your children safe on the Internet. If they come across something that is unsuitable then we talk about it. That means they know what's dangerous and how to deal with it, and we know what they're getting involved in.
Blocking access is just wrapping your kids in cotton wool - and when you can't do that any more, they suddenly become very vulnerable.
Just a quick search with google, and the youngest US Navy Captain I can find was 27, while the Royal Navy's youngest was 29.
Presumably Starfleet is an extension of current navies, so late twenties is not so strange. And IIRC, Kirk was supposed to be some kind of prodigy.
Real immigration reform? Social Security? Healthcare?
Your assumption is that people want this (I would) - but that's not necessarily the mainstream view, or more importantly the mainstream electoral view.
Younger people may be vocal in their support for these social justice issues, but they are not the individuals who actually vote. As we know, older people vote in much larger numbers and more conservatively - so what do you have? A conservative government.
To paraphrase the GP: "Enough older people wanted something, and it has happened, by way of democracy."
No point in being cynical about it, you have to get out and vote (which I'm sure you do).
Based on your criteria, 30% seems rather high.