I don't think revision control has anything to do with it. It's a matter of taking the time to change the comments near a block of code when you change that block of code. Revision control neither helps nor hinders in this process.
RIAA gets plenty of scorn, don't worry about that. That doesn't absolve Apple of scorn, however. They did go along with the RIAA's rules, so they are complicit.
Languages don't always follow population groups. Even if the Koreans have similar genetic background to the Turkic peoples, it doesn't mean the languages are related.
Paying extra for fancy hardware with a fancy name attached to it is one thing. But we aren't talking about that. We're talking about selling people music that's DRM-protected and non-transferable. Sure, maybe they should have done their research. But there's also the idea that you shouldn't sell ethically questionable or ethically wrong products, even if the customer is stupid enough to buy it. And the fact that you are willing to take advantage of stupidity or ignorance still makes you an asshole. That it also makes you an astute businessman is orthogonal.
That one is actually a bit sexist. The word was originally "femelle" (little woman). It was changed to "female" because it seemed to be a counterpart to "male". The words are otherwise not related to each other at all ("male" comes from Latin "masculus" and "femelle" from a dimunitive of the Latin "femina").
Clearly you didn't see the part where it's well below what it normally is at the minimum. It's not that ice is melting in the summer, it's that it's melting so much more than it used to. Are you really this dense?
I think it only ignores them with backends that don't support foreign keys, such as MyISAM. I was using 5.0.86 at work until very recently, and made heavy use of the cascade options. And when I went to delete rows with foreign keys linked to them, the rows in child tables did indeed delete. I never gave it a second thought. But I use InnoDB, like every other sane person out there.
It's really more an argument AGAINST the flat taxers, or the people who say that the rich shouldn't pay even more than their percentage proportion of income because, after all, they claim, the rich don't get very much out of the government so they shouldn't have to pay for it.
I, for my part, don't think super-high rates are necessary or even a good idea. But the idea of the progressive tax system, with the rich, as you say, paying overwhelmingly for the infrastructure in this country (both human and physical), is a good one and should be maintained as we try to get our fiscal house in order.
"Of-course the real boom in US economy was happening when there were no income or corporate or payroll taxes, but that's a separate issue. "
It is a separate issue and really has nothing or little to do with taxes and everything to do with the fact that vast new markets were opening up, combined with a population boom full of hungry people who could work (due to the lack of need of highly skilled labor).
You must be one of those people who thinks that birth control is only taken by sluts so that they can have wanton sex. It can't possibly be taken for medical reasons, or by married or otherwise committed couples who don't want to risk having children (and we have no shortage of children or people on this planet). And certainly, if you don't want to pay for birth control and things like that, you'd be happy to pay for unwanted pregnancies, adoption management, abortion clinics, etc., right? Or if you really think we should have no involvement in these sorts of things, then you'd sleep well at night knowing that we'd rather have people never have sex, or if they do, pay dearly (or fail to and be destitute, with a destitute kid), so that you don't have to spare a fraction of a cent of your tax dollars to help society a little bit, right?
Also, companies probably don't just tack on the tax cost to the product, because the prices must be competitive. If they raise prices too much, then they lose business, and that would dampen profits more than just leaving the prices alone (or having a slight increase) and eating the rest of the tax cost.
And my employer pays my income tax. The cycle goes on and on. That's how the economy works. Your argument basically boils down to "if nothing cost anything, everything would cost nothing". Well, duh. But not interesting.
And I don't want to use more than X MB/s of my internet connection, because if I need to, it bumps me up into a higher rate. Anything wrong with that? No.
This guy probably was facing a situation where he could get bumped out of low-rent housing (which he could afford) and then thrust into a world he couldn't afford. Your solution would only worsen that. At least the low-rent system allows people to have *some* place where they can get by. And when/if he gets a better job, he'd be able to make enough to afford not living in the low-rent situation.
That's not a poisoning of the well. That's determining that someone espouses a position that is value-incompatible with someone else's.
You guys can't just find vague similarities between argument patterns and call them fallacies. That's plain wrong. For example, many people call all personal attacks ad hominems, even though most aren't. A true ad hominem is an argument in which the target is declared wrong *because* of some personal fault, rather than because of the nature of the argument. That is, saying "you're wrong and you're an idiot" is different from saying "you're wrong because you're an idiot".
The rich get indirect benefits from the public service. It is, after all, the system of roads, railroads and ports that allow them to ship goods and move workers about. It is the clean air acts and environmental regulation that keeps their workers from dying. It is the education system, lame as it may be, that supplies a population with some baseline knowledge so that they can work for the rich. It is the military that protects the interests of those with the most property and is willing to go to war for oil so that industry can keep humming along. It is the massive amounts of publicly funded research that provide the seeds for new companies, new ideas, new industries. The big subsidies that brought us the internet and satellites. The list goes on and on. And while it's true that those things have improved lives for the average joe, they have also produced a MASSIVE improvement in the ability of the rich to get rich and stay rich. And that's all well and good. I have no problem with the government and public sector investing in the country so that there can be prosperity. But someone's gotta pay for it, and it seems to me that those who got rich off this peaceful, regulated, protected and educated country ought to pay for it.
Do you not know anything about history? I'd take any western nation over the states of old. Really, if I don't pay my taxes, for example, it's a long process before I can even end up in jail, let alone killed. And you know why? Because we have rights built into our system and there have been court cases and laws that both allow for the government to take taxes, but also limit its ability to force you to pay over any given time period and the nature in which they force you to do so. That's not something you'd get in your anarcho-capitalist "paradise".
So yes, any group of people has the capability to be mean to other people. It's not unique to government. That's a silly strawman that I keep seeing pop up time and time again. The government is just another organization whose existence and power exists only inasmuch as the people that compose it and are stakeholders in it continue to give it that power. The same is true with any other organization, large or small. This applies to the anarcho-capitalist system as well (perhaps even more, since there's no government sapping the power of the variety of societal organizations, thus preventing them from being threats to the people).
The government gives you the property rights. Without the government, you'd have some other group of thugs with guns making sure that people don't just come and take your property. The government was here first, they got all the property, and you have to pay for it. Deal with it or move somewhere else, or do what you'd have to do in your anarcho-capitalist paradise and fight for it.
You anarcho-capitalists are laughable. You're like whiny children who are made that they can't do whatever they want with no concern for how everything fits together and no concern for human solidarity and organization. You live in a fantasy-world of just-so stories for how self-organization and the free market will magically optimize every problem, when we know that that is patently not true in the general case and in a lot of specific cases.
And the rates were magically supposed to go down in the middle of a bad recession just because Obama moved into the White House in January 2009? The shit hadn't even fully hit the fan by then.
Lemme guess, you're one of those people who says that Obama took gas prices from 1.98 to almost 4.00, right?
Slashdot Mirror
Gotcha. That makes sense, but it wasn't clear in the context, since the term "revision control" usually refers to the software and its data model.
I don't think revision control has anything to do with it. It's a matter of taking the time to change the comments near a block of code when you change that block of code. Revision control neither helps nor hinders in this process.
RIAA gets plenty of scorn, don't worry about that. That doesn't absolve Apple of scorn, however. They did go along with the RIAA's rules, so they are complicit.
Languages don't always follow population groups. Even if the Koreans have similar genetic background to the Turkic peoples, it doesn't mean the languages are related.
Paying extra for fancy hardware with a fancy name attached to it is one thing. But we aren't talking about that. We're talking about selling people music that's DRM-protected and non-transferable. Sure, maybe they should have done their research. But there's also the idea that you shouldn't sell ethically questionable or ethically wrong products, even if the customer is stupid enough to buy it. And the fact that you are willing to take advantage of stupidity or ignorance still makes you an asshole. That it also makes you an astute businessman is orthogonal.
I don't see how taking advantage of other people's stupidity doesn't still make you an asshole.
Gotcha. Sorry to be one of those internet nitpicker dweebs!
That one is actually a bit sexist. The word was originally "femelle" (little woman). It was changed to "female" because it seemed to be a counterpart to "male". The words are otherwise not related to each other at all ("male" comes from Latin "masculus" and "femelle" from a dimunitive of the Latin "femina").
Clearly you didn't see the part where it's well below what it normally is at the minimum. It's not that ice is melting in the summer, it's that it's melting so much more than it used to. Are you really this dense?
I think it only ignores them with backends that don't support foreign keys, such as MyISAM. I was using 5.0.86 at work until very recently, and made heavy use of the cascade options. And when I went to delete rows with foreign keys linked to them, the rows in child tables did indeed delete. I never gave it a second thought. But I use InnoDB, like every other sane person out there.
See this for an example with someone with the problem you described: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5308255/on-delete-cascade-not-working-in-mysql
It's really more an argument AGAINST the flat taxers, or the people who say that the rich shouldn't pay even more than their percentage proportion of income because, after all, they claim, the rich don't get very much out of the government so they shouldn't have to pay for it.
I, for my part, don't think super-high rates are necessary or even a good idea. But the idea of the progressive tax system, with the rich, as you say, paying overwhelmingly for the infrastructure in this country (both human and physical), is a good one and should be maintained as we try to get our fiscal house in order.
I don't see how any of this in any way negates what I said above.
What? Works fine for me. Maybe you are thinking of MyISAM, which nobody would use these days when they can use InnoDB, or XtraDB on Percona.
"Of-course the real boom in US economy was happening when there were no income or corporate or payroll taxes, but that's a separate issue. "
It is a separate issue and really has nothing or little to do with taxes and everything to do with the fact that vast new markets were opening up, combined with a population boom full of hungry people who could work (due to the lack of need of highly skilled labor).
You must be one of those people who thinks that birth control is only taken by sluts so that they can have wanton sex. It can't possibly be taken for medical reasons, or by married or otherwise committed couples who don't want to risk having children (and we have no shortage of children or people on this planet). And certainly, if you don't want to pay for birth control and things like that, you'd be happy to pay for unwanted pregnancies, adoption management, abortion clinics, etc., right? Or if you really think we should have no involvement in these sorts of things, then you'd sleep well at night knowing that we'd rather have people never have sex, or if they do, pay dearly (or fail to and be destitute, with a destitute kid), so that you don't have to spare a fraction of a cent of your tax dollars to help society a little bit, right?
Also, companies probably don't just tack on the tax cost to the product, because the prices must be competitive. If they raise prices too much, then they lose business, and that would dampen profits more than just leaving the prices alone (or having a slight increase) and eating the rest of the tax cost.
And my employer pays my income tax. The cycle goes on and on. That's how the economy works. Your argument basically boils down to "if nothing cost anything, everything would cost nothing". Well, duh. But not interesting.
And I don't want to use more than X MB/s of my internet connection, because if I need to, it bumps me up into a higher rate. Anything wrong with that? No.
This guy probably was facing a situation where he could get bumped out of low-rent housing (which he could afford) and then thrust into a world he couldn't afford. Your solution would only worsen that. At least the low-rent system allows people to have *some* place where they can get by. And when/if he gets a better job, he'd be able to make enough to afford not living in the low-rent situation.
That's not a poisoning of the well. That's determining that someone espouses a position that is value-incompatible with someone else's.
You guys can't just find vague similarities between argument patterns and call them fallacies. That's plain wrong. For example, many people call all personal attacks ad hominems, even though most aren't. A true ad hominem is an argument in which the target is declared wrong *because* of some personal fault, rather than because of the nature of the argument. That is, saying "you're wrong and you're an idiot" is different from saying "you're wrong because you're an idiot".
The rich get indirect benefits from the public service. It is, after all, the system of roads, railroads and ports that allow them to ship goods and move workers about. It is the clean air acts and environmental regulation that keeps their workers from dying. It is the education system, lame as it may be, that supplies a population with some baseline knowledge so that they can work for the rich. It is the military that protects the interests of those with the most property and is willing to go to war for oil so that industry can keep humming along. It is the massive amounts of publicly funded research that provide the seeds for new companies, new ideas, new industries. The big subsidies that brought us the internet and satellites. The list goes on and on. And while it's true that those things have improved lives for the average joe, they have also produced a MASSIVE improvement in the ability of the rich to get rich and stay rich. And that's all well and good. I have no problem with the government and public sector investing in the country so that there can be prosperity. But someone's gotta pay for it, and it seems to me that those who got rich off this peaceful, regulated, protected and educated country ought to pay for it.
Do you not know anything about history? I'd take any western nation over the states of old. Really, if I don't pay my taxes, for example, it's a long process before I can even end up in jail, let alone killed. And you know why? Because we have rights built into our system and there have been court cases and laws that both allow for the government to take taxes, but also limit its ability to force you to pay over any given time period and the nature in which they force you to do so. That's not something you'd get in your anarcho-capitalist "paradise".
So yes, any group of people has the capability to be mean to other people. It's not unique to government. That's a silly strawman that I keep seeing pop up time and time again. The government is just another organization whose existence and power exists only inasmuch as the people that compose it and are stakeholders in it continue to give it that power. The same is true with any other organization, large or small. This applies to the anarcho-capitalist system as well (perhaps even more, since there's no government sapping the power of the variety of societal organizations, thus preventing them from being threats to the people).
The government gives you the property rights. Without the government, you'd have some other group of thugs with guns making sure that people don't just come and take your property. The government was here first, they got all the property, and you have to pay for it. Deal with it or move somewhere else, or do what you'd have to do in your anarcho-capitalist paradise and fight for it.
You anarcho-capitalists are laughable. You're like whiny children who are made that they can't do whatever they want with no concern for how everything fits together and no concern for human solidarity and organization. You live in a fantasy-world of just-so stories for how self-organization and the free market will magically optimize every problem, when we know that that is patently not true in the general case and in a lot of specific cases.
And the rates were magically supposed to go down in the middle of a bad recession just because Obama moved into the White House in January 2009? The shit hadn't even fully hit the fan by then.
Lemme guess, you're one of those people who says that Obama took gas prices from 1.98 to almost 4.00, right?
Certainly no other things were going on that might have affected the economy.
And you must remember that the Romans did not have a functioning capitalistic market economy. Why compare apples and oranges?
Care to back that up with some argumentation?