Reagan was center-right when politics was much further left than it is now.
Obama is center-left after the nation has moved very far to the right.
To me seems obvious that Obama is similarly conservative as Reagan, and who is farther left or right depends on the issue. On many issues Obama is indeed right of Reagan.
I don't think Obama's preferred polices are right of Reagan's, but as a centrist Obama cares mostly about what is doable in current politics, what consensus is available on an issue. And that is what he tries to push, rather than just trying to get his way. So it is natural that with the politics generally having moved so far right, the compromises available now are to the right of what they were under Reagan.
Reagan seems to have been a similar sort of centrist, but whose personal views were far to the right of what he usually proposed.
That just tells me you weren't listening to what he was actually saying, and instead were listening to pundits. From the left and right, they all claimed, "oh, he's not really the moderate centrist he claims to be, he's a black Democrat, he has to say that stuff but of course he's a Liberaaaal."
Then it turns out he was being literal and honest on the campaign trail, he's actually a moderate centrist who believes in the establishment. Then people howl, "he lied, he lied," but of course they never knew what he said in the first place; only what they were told by the pundits.
He seemed to be a moderate centrist to me when he was campaigning, but I guess I made the "mistake" of listening to his words and positions instead of listening to the people ready to tell me what he "really must believe."
That's total nonsense. Criminals are not "judged and sentenced according to the damage and harm they have done," thought that is certainly considered in sentencing. Actually they're judged and sentenced based on the crimes they're convicted of.
The reason you're having trouble with the logic is because you seem to think the task is to make it all up yourself from whole cloth. But actually the task is to understand existing legal principles in the US. Of course, you don't really need to get that far in this case because it was total apples and oranges anyways between un-named "Wall Street scammers" who aren't even facing charges, and a person convicted of felonies.
No, I was responding to the idea that it is generically bad advice not to focus on school like a drone.
And the future doesn't require the same percent of CS grads as the past did. We've already gotten to the point where computers have all the software features people know to want, and we've entered an era of paradigm thrashing where whole paradigms are changed without any increase in capabilities. The past didn't have that because there were long TODO lists. Now there is a surplus of software to do the things we know to want software to do.
There is not a future need for mediocre CS drones. There is, however, strong demand in a wide variety of fields accessible to even below-average people if they put in the degree work. For example there are a wide variety of finance and accounting degrees that are substantially useful, and where most of the knowledge really is memorized in school and then applied. Most of those specialties have no more than a few dozen pages a year of new things to learn, and there are industry periodicals that explain them all in a "for dummies" type of format.
I don't think you really addressed my comment at all.
no matter how good you are there are more things to account for when trying to choose your own way than what someone else somewhere and sometime else did. Those cheering that one or the other is stupid for you "because someone else" are the last people you should listen for.
Yes, actually, that was my whole point if you re-read the exchange. I was not providing an example that should be used as a prototype, I was providing an example that discredits the dogma that there is a One Best Way and that that way is canon; a degree.
You really need to collect some basic information about this issue. These pesticides are "new" in the sense of having been introduced around the time that the "new" problem of CCD increased. They are also the most popular on the market, so they are the standard thing that is used, not a "new" product in that sense.
Obviously a tobacco-style propagandist isn't going to be able to come up with anything better than complaining about being called that, but then call the other person an organic gardener.
You might have missed this part in your crusade against reason, but I never claimed to support organic gardening, nor did I offer it is a solution, or blame the problem on its dearth. The facts of what is causing CCD are the same regardless of where you are on organic gardening. And in fact, even if you think CCD is fine and don't think it is a problem that needs solving, the facts would still be the same!
You seem to be the wrong tree for a whole lot of things...;)
You're failing to consider the systemic nature of the problem. Those "harder" classes are still full of students, and still have to be taught in a way that they choose how many students they want to pass, and set the difficulty level based on that. Most Universities try to set the difficultly level so that only a couple people will fail, and half the class can get an A. You can take "harder" classes, but that will still be true.
And "harder" classes are not available to first year students; they have to take all the prerequisites.
Those "hard" classes are only "hard" if you're near the cuttoff and the University expects you to barely pass. But most of those "hard" classes represent normal day-to-day work of CS professionals. And in the workplace they'll be expected to be able to handle new technologies without being retrained; you have to be able to learn everything quickly and easily from solo resources or you will fail.
That is not true of many other degrees. In most jobs, workers are only expected to be able to do the things they were taught in their degree training, whatever is on their resume, and whatever the company is willing to train them for. The vast majority of workers just are not expected to be solo learners.
Perhaps you didn't know the details, so I'll forgive the snide comment. What Netflix tried to do with Comcast was to bypass Netflix' ISP and try to run direct lines. That'd be OK, but they tried to force Comcast to route all of Netflix content for free. That's a sleazy move by Netflix.
Funny that you said that about details, and then followed it with... heh. I dunno if you were lying about your level of knowledge, or are just lying about what happened. I'll assume then that there was no intentional mal intent, but I'll advise you for the future that throwing out claims of Truth from a position of ignorance is itself an act of mal intent.
That is what they were proposing as a work-around when Comcast was blaming the problem on Netfix's ISP. That is NOT what the actual dispute was over, which was Comcast playing games so that their own customers had poor access to the Netflix service.
That's a whole pile of derp. You're saying that even when insecticides was one of 3 main theories, (insecticides, mites, fungus) that it turning out to be... the most common insecticide, that had entered the market at the right time to be responsible, and then became popular... you're saying that is counts as a NEW theory?! Derpderpderp!
So lets not pretend here. It is pretty obvious that I applied reason, and found that the main suspected cause is NOT the 112th new theory. And therefore you're a tobacco-style propagandist.
There are different paths to "success", although I must agree that the value of getting a degree is diminishing every day, it's not necessarily a bad thing to do. It really depends on the circumstances of each case.
Right. So the value of getting a degree is always less than it was worth when people each decided it was the One True Way and only an idiot would listen to advice otherwise.
In the case of a person who is only a year in and bored and wanting real work, they obviously could make use of the degree, but they obviously also don't need it.
And if she "can't" do your job, that proves only one thing about your job; it must legally require some sort of certificate or registration that she doesn't have. That is the only sort of claim you could logically make without a lot more information.
Just because we shouldn't assume mal intent where there might only be plain idiocy, that does not mean that anything awful or dangerous is automatically mistaken. It could be that they're not even clueless.
You should probably pare down your petition to asking for just one thing. Asking for a bunch of things, some of them poorly worded, means that even if I think I probably agree with what you meant, I'm not going to agree with the entire package as stated. And that will probably always be the case when you have more than 1 thing on a petition.
There's always an asterick and that leads to a note that says "well, you'll get 50mbps provided the rest of your neighborhood isn't trying to hit the pipe hard at the same time."
Sorry buddy, but you should really re-read your fine print because that isn't the hedge at all. Worse, it really says "up to 50mbps." That is actually your hard cap, NOT a speed they are promising even under perfect conditions with no other load. They never promise you could actually get that speed. Just that you can't get more than that speed. Except that they don't promise that you can't get more, either. A totally useless metric, for all parties, but it is the one they're selling their account tiers based on.
Uhm, I'm not sure which Adam Smith you read, but my Capitalist Bible (Wealth of Nations) says that unless the government regulates them to ensure a level playing field, including for new players, then they will collude and the most established players will loot the customers and any smaller competition.
I agree this is not much of a surprise. I gotta ask, though. If not the government, exactly who has enough power to get the telecom industry to actually behave?
I think a Martian invasion is our last, best hope for that one.
What, you expect people who complain about other people not being informed to care so much about being informed that they would be informed and also attempt to appear so?! Wow, that's a high bar!
In Oregon a felon's right to vote is restored when they have completed their sentences and post-release supervision. Gun rights can be restored by applying with the local Sherrif's Office. (usually granted)
You've got a bait-and-switch there, grandpa. You're old enough to know about these internet tubes, so you must have forgotten your meds.
First you say, "If Netflix pays for their bandwidth to their ISP to serve their content" and then later you replace that with "f Netflix tries to get bandwidth for free, as they were trying to do with Comcast" but Comcast wasn't their ISP. They did pay their ISP for their bandwidth.
Slashdot Mirror
Reagan was center-right when politics was much further left than it is now.
Obama is center-left after the nation has moved very far to the right.
To me seems obvious that Obama is similarly conservative as Reagan, and who is farther left or right depends on the issue. On many issues Obama is indeed right of Reagan.
I don't think Obama's preferred polices are right of Reagan's, but as a centrist Obama cares mostly about what is doable in current politics, what consensus is available on an issue. And that is what he tries to push, rather than just trying to get his way. So it is natural that with the politics generally having moved so far right, the compromises available now are to the right of what they were under Reagan.
Reagan seems to have been a similar sort of centrist, but whose personal views were far to the right of what he usually proposed.
That just tells me you weren't listening to what he was actually saying, and instead were listening to pundits. From the left and right, they all claimed, "oh, he's not really the moderate centrist he claims to be, he's a black Democrat, he has to say that stuff but of course he's a Liberaaaal."
Then it turns out he was being literal and honest on the campaign trail, he's actually a moderate centrist who believes in the establishment. Then people howl, "he lied, he lied," but of course they never knew what he said in the first place; only what they were told by the pundits.
He seemed to be a moderate centrist to me when he was campaigning, but I guess I made the "mistake" of listening to his words and positions instead of listening to the people ready to tell me what he "really must believe."
Well, by "pressure" they just mean, "had nothing to do with but was guilty of being black while President."
That's total nonsense. Criminals are not "judged and sentenced according to the damage and harm they have done," thought that is certainly considered in sentencing. Actually they're judged and sentenced based on the crimes they're convicted of.
The reason you're having trouble with the logic is because you seem to think the task is to make it all up yourself from whole cloth. But actually the task is to understand existing legal principles in the US. Of course, you don't really need to get that far in this case because it was total apples and oranges anyways between un-named "Wall Street scammers" who aren't even facing charges, and a person convicted of felonies.
No, I was responding to the idea that it is generically bad advice not to focus on school like a drone.
And the future doesn't require the same percent of CS grads as the past did. We've already gotten to the point where computers have all the software features people know to want, and we've entered an era of paradigm thrashing where whole paradigms are changed without any increase in capabilities. The past didn't have that because there were long TODO lists. Now there is a surplus of software to do the things we know to want software to do.
There is not a future need for mediocre CS drones. There is, however, strong demand in a wide variety of fields accessible to even below-average people if they put in the degree work. For example there are a wide variety of finance and accounting degrees that are substantially useful, and where most of the knowledge really is memorized in school and then applied. Most of those specialties have no more than a few dozen pages a year of new things to learn, and there are industry periodicals that explain them all in a "for dummies" type of format.
I don't think you really addressed my comment at all.
no matter how good you are there are more things to account for when trying to choose your own way than what someone else somewhere and sometime else did. Those cheering that one or the other is stupid for you "because someone else" are the last people you should listen for.
Yes, actually, that was my whole point if you re-read the exchange. I was not providing an example that should be used as a prototype, I was providing an example that discredits the dogma that there is a One Best Way and that that way is canon; a degree.
You really need to collect some basic information about this issue. These pesticides are "new" in the sense of having been introduced around the time that the "new" problem of CCD increased. They are also the most popular on the market, so they are the standard thing that is used, not a "new" product in that sense.
Obviously a tobacco-style propagandist isn't going to be able to come up with anything better than complaining about being called that, but then call the other person an organic gardener.
You might have missed this part in your crusade against reason, but I never claimed to support organic gardening, nor did I offer it is a solution, or blame the problem on its dearth. The facts of what is causing CCD are the same regardless of where you are on organic gardening. And in fact, even if you think CCD is fine and don't think it is a problem that needs solving, the facts would still be the same!
You seem to be the wrong tree for a whole lot of things... ;)
99% of the population do not have jobs that require a CS degree, and the vast majority of them would fail in those jobs.
You're failing to consider the systemic nature of the problem. Those "harder" classes are still full of students, and still have to be taught in a way that they choose how many students they want to pass, and set the difficulty level based on that. Most Universities try to set the difficultly level so that only a couple people will fail, and half the class can get an A. You can take "harder" classes, but that will still be true.
And "harder" classes are not available to first year students; they have to take all the prerequisites.
Those "hard" classes are only "hard" if you're near the cuttoff and the University expects you to barely pass. But most of those "hard" classes represent normal day-to-day work of CS professionals. And in the workplace they'll be expected to be able to handle new technologies without being retrained; you have to be able to learn everything quickly and easily from solo resources or you will fail.
That is not true of many other degrees. In most jobs, workers are only expected to be able to do the things they were taught in their degree training, whatever is on their resume, and whatever the company is willing to train them for. The vast majority of workers just are not expected to be solo learners.
Perhaps you didn't know the details, so I'll forgive the snide comment. What Netflix tried to do with Comcast was to bypass Netflix' ISP and try to run direct lines. That'd be OK, but they tried to force Comcast to route all of Netflix content for free. That's a sleazy move by Netflix.
Funny that you said that about details, and then followed it with... heh. I dunno if you were lying about your level of knowledge, or are just lying about what happened. I'll assume then that there was no intentional mal intent, but I'll advise you for the future that throwing out claims of Truth from a position of ignorance is itself an act of mal intent.
That is what they were proposing as a work-around when Comcast was blaming the problem on Netfix's ISP. That is NOT what the actual dispute was over, which was Comcast playing games so that their own customers had poor access to the Netflix service.
That's a whole pile of derp. You're saying that even when insecticides was one of 3 main theories, (insecticides, mites, fungus) that it turning out to be... the most common insecticide, that had entered the market at the right time to be responsible, and then became popular... you're saying that is counts as a NEW theory?! Derpderpderp!
So lets not pretend here. It is pretty obvious that I applied reason, and found that the main suspected cause is NOT the 112th new theory. And therefore you're a tobacco-style propagandist.
There are different paths to "success", although I must agree that the value of getting a degree is diminishing every day, it's not necessarily a bad thing to do. It really depends on the circumstances of each case.
Right. So the value of getting a degree is always less than it was worth when people each decided it was the One True Way and only an idiot would listen to advice otherwise.
In the case of a person who is only a year in and bored and wanting real work, they obviously could make use of the degree, but they obviously also don't need it.
And if she "can't" do your job, that proves only one thing about your job; it must legally require some sort of certificate or registration that she doesn't have. That is the only sort of claim you could logically make without a lot more information.
for colony collapse. Stay tuned next week for the 112th.
This was one of the original explanations before you "how could insecticides be bad for nice, friendly bees" types got started with the propaganda.
Good job, now you've got Al Franken doing your thinking for you! It is a small step, but you're making progress.
Just because we shouldn't assume mal intent where there might only be plain idiocy, that does not mean that anything awful or dangerous is automatically mistaken. It could be that they're not even clueless.
You should probably pare down your petition to asking for just one thing. Asking for a bunch of things, some of them poorly worded, means that even if I think I probably agree with what you meant, I'm not going to agree with the entire package as stated. And that will probably always be the case when you have more than 1 thing on a petition.
There's always an asterick and that leads to a note that says "well, you'll get 50mbps provided the rest of your neighborhood isn't trying to hit the pipe hard at the same time."
Sorry buddy, but you should really re-read your fine print because that isn't the hedge at all. Worse, it really says "up to 50mbps." That is actually your hard cap, NOT a speed they are promising even under perfect conditions with no other load. They never promise you could actually get that speed. Just that you can't get more than that speed. Except that they don't promise that you can't get more, either. A totally useless metric, for all parties, but it is the one they're selling their account tiers based on.
Other parts do hedge even more.
Just imagine the hoopla and media sound bites if there were a Republican in the White House while the FCC was doing this.
No, it wouldn't even make the front 10 pages of the newspaper, becaues those would all be about the new invasion of Beckybeckystanistan.
Uhm, I'm not sure which Adam Smith you read, but my Capitalist Bible (Wealth of Nations) says that unless the government regulates them to ensure a level playing field, including for new players, then they will collude and the most established players will loot the customers and any smaller competition.
I agree this is not much of a surprise. I gotta ask, though. If not the government, exactly who has enough power to get the telecom industry to actually behave?
I think a Martian invasion is our last, best hope for that one.
Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR)
Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR)
Have an example?
What, you expect people who complain about other people not being informed to care so much about being informed that they would be informed and also attempt to appear so?! Wow, that's a high bar!
In Oregon a felon's right to vote is restored when they have completed their sentences and post-release supervision. Gun rights can be restored by applying with the local Sherrif's Office. (usually granted)
I'm sorry to be the one to inform you, but you appear to have drank spoiled koolaid.
You've got a bait-and-switch there, grandpa. You're old enough to know about these internet tubes, so you must have forgotten your meds.
First you say, "If Netflix pays for their bandwidth to their ISP to serve their content" and then later you replace that with "f Netflix tries to get bandwidth for free, as they were trying to do with Comcast" but Comcast wasn't their ISP. They did pay their ISP for their bandwidth.
You have a bad attitude, you're probably getting too many pain killers.