As an American, I want a strong EU. They are an entity that would bring very positive competition that I'm not certain China or India can offer. So please take your rant and turn it into activism. Change those "dictators in Brussels" into democratically elected and fully responsible civil servants. The world would be a much better place.
Re:They are using RPM 4.6.0 release candidate
on
Fedora 10 Released
·
· Score: 1
Yes, its just a shame its on by default for Fedora. I don't think anyone uses Fedora for anything too critical, so it'd be nice if it defaulted to disabled. This is becoming my one gripe with Fedora.
They key is that things should be as easy as possible if you want more people to use them.
Why are you treating that statement as an axiom? I use Fedora partially because its what I know and partially because after trying other distros, I came back. Fedora fits my needs better than any other distro. Is that really so difficult for you to understand?
If you're trying to push this as a mass appeal argument and not a personal choice argument, then you're talking to the wrong crowd. Fedora users don't want Fedora to have mass appeal. We want to play with our toys and this distro provides that better than anyone else. If for some reason this ever gained mass appeal, its because the masses changed, not Fedora. And that's not going to happen. So please stop. You are hurting my head by not seeing the error of your ways.
Many of them want attention. Its typical HPD behaviour.
This is a disorder?!?! Wow. The bullshit psychologists come up with is amazing. This is a personality trait and nothing more. Calling it a disorder is horribly normative and should be quite embarrassing for any one hoping to do real science.
You are correct in that it is not a fee for services. It is not a redistribution of wealth though, because with taxes it was not your money to begin with. That is the money society has determined belongs to everyone. If you don't like it you can become a subsistence farmer. We don't support them because they actually do support themselves. Just don't expect a quality of life. That requires reliance on ours.
We certainly need the cynics, but too much cynicism and we won't be able to see the real winners when they come along. And frankly I wonder if its cynicism that led us into voting for the "feel good" candidate as opposed to the guy that has the better policy. Thankfully this time around the 2 are one in the same, as far as I'm concerned.
This is not true everywhere. Here in Montana we have at least 1 Senator that is not at all corrupt, Jon Tester. He's a freshman Senator, so we'll see how things progress for him. But so far I have yet to differ with him on almost any Senate vote (he did vote for the first bailout, but not the one that passed). I can't even say that Senator Baucus is corrupt, I just disagree with many of his politics. I really don't like our Rep, but its really more Rep Rehberg's wife that is corrupt. So no, it is not a requirement. Please please please please take action. Don't hide behind cynicism, it doesn't do anyone any good.
I'm not certain that most Christians do have a choice about believing in their god. My understanding is that salvation can only be obtained through the grace of god which is pre-ordained. And then there is a 1-1 relationship between those who have the grace and the true-believers. After that there's some hand-waving so that the true-believers have free-will to choose to believe in god, but if there's a 1-1 relationship there, it doesn't make sense that its free-will. This is all due to some tripe written by that bastard Saint Paul. It was all a big fiasco back in the day, but its just one of the many holes found in that Bible thing. The Catholics plugged it up with some fancy/lengthy word smithing that confuses the masses and has mostly been forgotten. The Mainline Protestant churches seem to have embraced the notion thoroughly.
note: I read a bunch of Saint Paul's letters in grade school. I quickly realized he was a douche. If the Catholic church didn't place so much emphasis on him I might have been a Christian all the way into high school.
There were a lot of people that did blindly follow Einstein about quantum mechanics even though he was proven very wrong. Scientists are people too. I hate religion and the blind faith that goes with it, but don't pretend that scientists are anything but people. They are just as fallible as the next guy and any cult of personality such as Einstein's leads to religious-like beliefs. He doesn't have to be the pope to get even smart people to believe in a load of shit.
I don't see what this story has to do with the Ottoman Empire. Turks weren't really even prevalent in Asia Minor till about a thousand years ago. The summary should have stuck to using Asia Minor.
Low-level stuff is generally messy. As far as I've ever seen you have either clean or efficient. Since you like c++ code pretty much tells me you're not going for efficiency. Unless compilers have changed much since 2003 (the last time I touched c++, thank $DEITY) it produces unnecessarily bloated apps. I can't think of a reason to be writing low-level code unless you want efficiency...
Another fallacy -- turns out, for the most part, modern garbage collectors actually outperform manual memory management, and certainly simple reference counting.
I feel the need to cry BS. Perhaps garbage collection is better when someone doesn't get memory management. And for large systems where its hard to track down memory leaks, I don't see why you wouldn't use garbage collection. But it is not possible for garbage collection to perform better than a competent engineer.
It's off by default if you install it from source. I don't think I've ever seen a Linux package that doesn't enable it by default though. And good for that. Vim is my IDE of choice. If only Eclipse supported different editors and I could just drop it in. It'd be better than the vi Eclipse hack (albeit a good one).
Something wrong with a human-centric view of the Earth? The current climate is one in which we have thrived. We have not seen much warmer climates in human history. I am of the mind that we want stable temperatures until we have sufficiently left the Earth before we "experiment" with different climates.
If its so simple why can't anyone give a logical reason why? And by logical, I mean applying a form of Socialism that many first world countries employ today with their successful economies. I am a socialist, but I do understand that part of America's success is that our poor are poorer than Western/Northern Europe's poor. The poor don't use their money to further economic and political dominance of the world. Granted, that's not really something I think America needs. I wouldn't mind letting the EU help tackle Russia and China in this new century. So please enlighten us.
Also, we do employ a lot of socialist principles. So please tell us how we are still the leading nation with some socialism in the government. Perhaps these elements are bringing us down, but that's just more fuel for your logical argument. We (perhaps just I...) are waiting.
A lot of that money does actually make its way into the Iraqi economy. Another good portion of it goes into pockets of rich people that put them into certain markets that don't really cycle out into the general american economy. They fatten themselves and their friends, but money that could have gone directly into benefiting schools or other government programs (and is often taken out against our national debt) is instead only indirectly coming back to the government and general taxpayers in a much diminished form.
Really the parent meant that the term Liberalism has changed in definition since the founding of this great country. And yes, using 2008 definitions, the parent also meant to use Libertarianism.
1. Those jobs _are_ beneath any American. I do understand that this removes many of t3h st00pid from the work force and puts them on welfare. But better them on welfare than working a job that they can't pay the bills with and so they resort to stealing, racking up bad credit, or other nefarious activities. Also, automation creates better paying jobs (even if fewer of them)
2. I would love to see some statistics to back this up, but I think its too complex a solution without the possibility of a clean room to experiment with. You are probably partially correct, but remember that it is only a small adjustment, not a total communistic redistribution of wealth. It will raise the price of many items, but it would not be an equivalent raise. So if we renegotiate the minimum wage every year, we should be able to peg it to a living wage at some point that the economy can deal with effectively.
Of course, I envision a future where automation has put so many people out of a job that we have no choice but to provide welfare. Or suffer some kind of revolt.
I understand your sentiment, but it is only partially correct. As usual the attempt to boil it down to a nice simple slogan fails to capture the nuance of the problem. Property tax is not a tax on property but a tax based on property. In effect the same, but with the intent is very different. The former is generally not going to be supported by anyone while the latter, though not any kind of popular (what tax is?) but people can at least support it.
I work for a local charity that has no overhead. The administrators all pay for overhead out of their own pockets. Every donated cent is put to work. But it is currently a small operation. We are looking at some aggresive expansion in the near future. I've already been asked to fill one of the new employee positions as a website coordinator. We are starting to introduce real overhead into the organization. It is could for now as it will bring in more money. But when the organization is large will we have to rival fortune 500 companies for CEO pay? Some non-profit organizations already do. Your 90% efficiency number is pure BS. Some good organizations do have a very high effeciency. But plenty do not. And many of the organizations will put your donated money to use in ways that you may not want, but thanks to creative book keeping, you don't know that.
At least you have a say in governments. The only say you have in charity is who you give the money to. With your vote, you can influence the government in not just how much is taxed, but also where it goes. Perhaps you are wholly disillusioned with the government, but don't give undue blanket credit to non-profit organizations.
Also, I feel it bears saying, any many collected through income tax _is not your money_. It never was. The whole point of a progressive income tax is that no matter how you make your money, you rely upon public works in some way and the more you make, the greater your reliance. The income tax you provide is a contract with your government about how much is considered public money. Perhaps you disagree with this premise or how much people pay. But please stop saying that it is your money when it is not your money. We have a Democratically elected government. You are the government. You _do_ have the power to change it.
And yes, going more (but not completely) socialist is the answer. (had to throw in my own, totally unsupported spin =D)
I would turn your initial statement around on you. No corporations do not grow the economy. The economy is not a plant and CEOs are not gardeners. The economy is a very complex beast that has always seemed to sustain long-term growth when the middle class is strong. And having watched many businesses in the last decade, I feel too many of them do unintentionally hurt the economy for quarterly profits and monopolist protectionism.
No, you don't know that. I'll agree that I wish I could give my taxes to social programs instead of war, but almost all major charities do squander large amounts on bureaucracy. And of course small charities generally have a difficult time finding those that are truly needy. I still find the best option is to try and reform government welfare as we at least have a say in its operations unlike large charities.
As I have seen it, ACORN committed no fraud. Perhaps I have missed the story that points at ACORN employees doing anything wrong, but it is the people ACORN is trying to register that are the fraudsters. ACORN did not create a Mickey Mouse registration form. Someone who ACORN was trying to register did. ACORN then in fact did the ethically correct thing and turn it in. Let the voter registration people determine if it is fraudulent, not the guy trying to sign up Obama supporters. He might throw out registration cards if he thinks the person might vote McCain. If people are voting based on this fraud, it is due to asshats handing ACORN fraudulent cards and State Departments not throwing them out.
Slashdot Mirror
As an American, I want a strong EU. They are an entity that would bring very positive competition that I'm not certain China or India can offer. So please take your rant and turn it into activism. Change those "dictators in Brussels" into democratically elected and fully responsible civil servants. The world would be a much better place.
Yes, its just a shame its on by default for Fedora. I don't think anyone uses Fedora for anything too critical, so it'd be nice if it defaulted to disabled. This is becoming my one gripe with Fedora.
They key is that things should be as easy as possible if you want more people to use them.
Why are you treating that statement as an axiom? I use Fedora partially because its what I know and partially because after trying other distros, I came back. Fedora fits my needs better than any other distro. Is that really so difficult for you to understand?
If you're trying to push this as a mass appeal argument and not a personal choice argument, then you're talking to the wrong crowd. Fedora users don't want Fedora to have mass appeal. We want to play with our toys and this distro provides that better than anyone else. If for some reason this ever gained mass appeal, its because the masses changed, not Fedora. And that's not going to happen. So please stop. You are hurting my head by not seeing the error of your ways.
Many of them want attention. Its typical HPD behaviour.
This is a disorder?!?! Wow. The bullshit psychologists come up with is amazing. This is a personality trait and nothing more. Calling it a disorder is horribly normative and should be quite embarrassing for any one hoping to do real science.
You are correct in that it is not a fee for services. It is not a redistribution of wealth though, because with taxes it was not your money to begin with. That is the money society has determined belongs to everyone. If you don't like it you can become a subsistence farmer. We don't support them because they actually do support themselves. Just don't expect a quality of life. That requires reliance on ours.
We certainly need the cynics, but too much cynicism and we won't be able to see the real winners when they come along. And frankly I wonder if its cynicism that led us into voting for the "feel good" candidate as opposed to the guy that has the better policy. Thankfully this time around the 2 are one in the same, as far as I'm concerned.
This is not true everywhere. Here in Montana we have at least 1 Senator that is not at all corrupt, Jon Tester. He's a freshman Senator, so we'll see how things progress for him. But so far I have yet to differ with him on almost any Senate vote (he did vote for the first bailout, but not the one that passed). I can't even say that Senator Baucus is corrupt, I just disagree with many of his politics. I really don't like our Rep, but its really more Rep Rehberg's wife that is corrupt. So no, it is not a requirement. Please please please please take action. Don't hide behind cynicism, it doesn't do anyone any good.
I'm not certain that most Christians do have a choice about believing in their god. My understanding is that salvation can only be obtained through the grace of god which is pre-ordained. And then there is a 1-1 relationship between those who have the grace and the true-believers. After that there's some hand-waving so that the true-believers have free-will to choose to believe in god, but if there's a 1-1 relationship there, it doesn't make sense that its free-will. This is all due to some tripe written by that bastard Saint Paul. It was all a big fiasco back in the day, but its just one of the many holes found in that Bible thing. The Catholics plugged it up with some fancy/lengthy word smithing that confuses the masses and has mostly been forgotten. The Mainline Protestant churches seem to have embraced the notion thoroughly.
note: I read a bunch of Saint Paul's letters in grade school. I quickly realized he was a douche. If the Catholic church didn't place so much emphasis on him I might have been a Christian all the way into high school.
There were a lot of people that did blindly follow Einstein about quantum mechanics even though he was proven very wrong. Scientists are people too. I hate religion and the blind faith that goes with it, but don't pretend that scientists are anything but people. They are just as fallible as the next guy and any cult of personality such as Einstein's leads to religious-like beliefs. He doesn't have to be the pope to get even smart people to believe in a load of shit.
I don't see what this story has to do with the Ottoman Empire. Turks weren't really even prevalent in Asia Minor till about a thousand years ago. The summary should have stuck to using Asia Minor.
Low-level stuff is generally messy. As far as I've ever seen you have either clean or efficient. Since you like c++ code pretty much tells me you're not going for efficiency. Unless compilers have changed much since 2003 (the last time I touched c++, thank $DEITY) it produces unnecessarily bloated apps. I can't think of a reason to be writing low-level code unless you want efficiency...
such as advanced memory managment
Another fallacy -- turns out, for the most part, modern garbage collectors actually outperform manual memory management, and certainly simple reference counting.
I feel the need to cry BS. Perhaps garbage collection is better when someone doesn't get memory management. And for large systems where its hard to track down memory leaks, I don't see why you wouldn't use garbage collection. But it is not possible for garbage collection to perform better than a competent engineer.
It's off by default if you install it from source. I don't think I've ever seen a Linux package that doesn't enable it by default though. And good for that. Vim is my IDE of choice. If only Eclipse supported different editors and I could just drop it in. It'd be better than the vi Eclipse hack (albeit a good one).
Something wrong with a human-centric view of the Earth? The current climate is one in which we have thrived. We have not seen much warmer climates in human history. I am of the mind that we want stable temperatures until we have sufficiently left the Earth before we "experiment" with different climates.
If its so simple why can't anyone give a logical reason why? And by logical, I mean applying a form of Socialism that many first world countries employ today with their successful economies. I am a socialist, but I do understand that part of America's success is that our poor are poorer than Western/Northern Europe's poor. The poor don't use their money to further economic and political dominance of the world. Granted, that's not really something I think America needs. I wouldn't mind letting the EU help tackle Russia and China in this new century. So please enlighten us.
Also, we do employ a lot of socialist principles. So please tell us how we are still the leading nation with some socialism in the government. Perhaps these elements are bringing us down, but that's just more fuel for your logical argument. We (perhaps just I...) are waiting.
A lot of that money does actually make its way into the Iraqi economy. Another good portion of it goes into pockets of rich people that put them into certain markets that don't really cycle out into the general american economy. They fatten themselves and their friends, but money that could have gone directly into benefiting schools or other government programs (and is often taken out against our national debt) is instead only indirectly coming back to the government and general taxpayers in a much diminished form.
I like the cut of your jib....I mean, if you were a boat, your jib would be amazing.
Really the parent meant that the term Liberalism has changed in definition since the founding of this great country. And yes, using 2008 definitions, the parent also meant to use Libertarianism.
Taxed money belongs to the government. A tax break is the government giving some of that to the earner. Ergo welfare.
1. Those jobs _are_ beneath any American. I do understand that this removes many of t3h st00pid from the work force and puts them on welfare. But better them on welfare than working a job that they can't pay the bills with and so they resort to stealing, racking up bad credit, or other nefarious activities. Also, automation creates better paying jobs (even if fewer of them)
2. I would love to see some statistics to back this up, but I think its too complex a solution without the possibility of a clean room to experiment with. You are probably partially correct, but remember that it is only a small adjustment, not a total communistic redistribution of wealth. It will raise the price of many items, but it would not be an equivalent raise. So if we renegotiate the minimum wage every year, we should be able to peg it to a living wage at some point that the economy can deal with effectively.
Of course, I envision a future where automation has put so many people out of a job that we have no choice but to provide welfare. Or suffer some kind of revolt.
I understand your sentiment, but it is only partially correct. As usual the attempt to boil it down to a nice simple slogan fails to capture the nuance of the problem. Property tax is not a tax on property but a tax based on property. In effect the same, but with the intent is very different. The former is generally not going to be supported by anyone while the latter, though not any kind of popular (what tax is?) but people can at least support it.
I work for a local charity that has no overhead. The administrators all pay for overhead out of their own pockets. Every donated cent is put to work. But it is currently a small operation. We are looking at some aggresive expansion in the near future. I've already been asked to fill one of the new employee positions as a website coordinator. We are starting to introduce real overhead into the organization. It is could for now as it will bring in more money. But when the organization is large will we have to rival fortune 500 companies for CEO pay? Some non-profit organizations already do. Your 90% efficiency number is pure BS. Some good organizations do have a very high effeciency. But plenty do not. And many of the organizations will put your donated money to use in ways that you may not want, but thanks to creative book keeping, you don't know that. At least you have a say in governments. The only say you have in charity is who you give the money to. With your vote, you can influence the government in not just how much is taxed, but also where it goes. Perhaps you are wholly disillusioned with the government, but don't give undue blanket credit to non-profit organizations. Also, I feel it bears saying, any many collected through income tax _is not your money_. It never was. The whole point of a progressive income tax is that no matter how you make your money, you rely upon public works in some way and the more you make, the greater your reliance. The income tax you provide is a contract with your government about how much is considered public money. Perhaps you disagree with this premise or how much people pay. But please stop saying that it is your money when it is not your money. We have a Democratically elected government. You are the government. You _do_ have the power to change it. And yes, going more (but not completely) socialist is the answer. (had to throw in my own, totally unsupported spin =D)
I would turn your initial statement around on you. No corporations do not grow the economy. The economy is not a plant and CEOs are not gardeners. The economy is a very complex beast that has always seemed to sustain long-term growth when the middle class is strong. And having watched many businesses in the last decade, I feel too many of them do unintentionally hurt the economy for quarterly profits and monopolist protectionism.
No, you don't know that. I'll agree that I wish I could give my taxes to social programs instead of war, but almost all major charities do squander large amounts on bureaucracy. And of course small charities generally have a difficult time finding those that are truly needy. I still find the best option is to try and reform government welfare as we at least have a say in its operations unlike large charities.
As I have seen it, ACORN committed no fraud. Perhaps I have missed the story that points at ACORN employees doing anything wrong, but it is the people ACORN is trying to register that are the fraudsters. ACORN did not create a Mickey Mouse registration form. Someone who ACORN was trying to register did. ACORN then in fact did the ethically correct thing and turn it in. Let the voter registration people determine if it is fraudulent, not the guy trying to sign up Obama supporters. He might throw out registration cards if he thinks the person might vote McCain. If people are voting based on this fraud, it is due to asshats handing ACORN fraudulent cards and State Departments not throwing them out.