I'm like that. I actually wouldn't mind rewriting most of the stuff I've written, but it all works and I can understand what things I wrote 10 years ago are supposed to be doing. But like the GP, even while I'm writing I often feel like I could have done it a better way - not the nitty gritty coding, but the approach I took to begin with. I think the overall sentiment is there's always room for improvement, even if the code is good and works, but you can't keep changing or you won't finish (and I rarely get a chance at version 2 where I work).
Well, you're off by at least an order of magnitude, and likely a lot more. If you look at official police misconduct numbers for example here, you'll see that something around 1% of police officers are involved in serious complaints each year.
...
And keep in mind these are reported official cases of misconduct. Recent analyses have shown that lots of questionable actions taken by police while on duty are not prosecuted or investigated thoroughly
You're misusing the statistics and twisting them to fit your preconceived notions of how terrible police are. Around 1% get complaints, but that doesn't say how many are valid. The second paragraph quoted doesn't change that... in fact, it adds nothing to it... 10% could get complaints, it doesn't make 10% guilty of wrong doing.
As far as not talking to police, you're again missing context... if you're under arrest, then don't talk to police. Otherwise you're likely just being an asshole and obstructing justice. If you say something incriminating before being read your Miranda rights, it's inadmissible in court... and of course, you can only say something incriminating if you've actually done something wrong. If you haven't done anything wrong, there's no reason not to talk to police.
Right... they provide a kiosk for people to submit applications. So I don't see the problem. BTW, you're wrong about most of those places - since most of them are franchises, they are owned by a local owner; I don't even frequent fast food places that often, but have seen plenty of people asking for, and getting, paper applications. I'm not saying people don't need help, I'm saying internet is NOT a necessity - but we're not even talking about internet access, TFA is talking about BROADBAND.
U.S. Constitution explicitly says the right to bear arms cannot be infringed. It doesn't say "guns," it says "arms." No, it doesn't make sense for an individual to have an ICBM, but given the point of the amendment, I'd say any personal arms should be legal for law-abiding citizens. But instead of just denying people the right clearly protected in the constitution, if you disagree, the only really "legal" way to block it is to pass an amendment clarifying which arms. But we don't need to follow the constitution anymore, anyway... the government has slowly "interpreted" away most of the meaning already, which is why the government grants itself the right to fully automatic weapons, but not citizens.
Then when people say the reason for the amendment is for the citizens to protect itself from a tyrannical government, you say "like you can defend against bazookas and automatic weapons and hand grenades and Apache gunships!" Completely oblivious to the fact that the government has granted itself the right to have those weapons and taken it away from individuals, explicitly subverting the purpose of the amendment, and you don't see the problem with that.
No, I think he got it - just in a slightly more wordy, round-about way. If you ask Europeans if they'd want to live in Texas, most of them picture cowboys walking around with holsters and it being like the "wild west." They don't really seem to get that it's often the most "liberal" cities that have the worst problems.
No kidding, I'm not defending thus guys actions, but what do authorities expect to happen, when they are repeatedly caught breaking the law them selves, and hiding behind their badges. Remember it's the 95% of authority figures that make the 5% looks bad.
#1rule in America today is "Don't talk to the police" for many damned good reasons. They can shoot you if they feel like it and as a matter of policy. They can lie to you. They will frame you. They will spy on you, innocent it not. They will confiscate your money, your property, your freedom and your life, with no judge or jury involved.
Frankly, I'm surprised this doesn't happen more often.
That's patently absurd.... "Don't talk to police" is for the people asking for trouble. Don't be a dick to police who are doing their job well. My father was a police officer for 20 years and somehow managed not to shoot any black people or violate anyone's rights. That's 99.9% of police officers. They cannot shoot you if they "feel like it." Sometimes police officers commit crimes and get away with it, but you've been brainlessly skewed by the media if you think that's the "norm."
My father asked me if I ever considered being a police officer, and I told him straight out I don't have the patience for assholes like you.
Your ideology is incredibly short-sighted and selfish as fuck.
No, I actually don't believe teaching a man to fish is shortsighted or selfish. You are also one of the many people conflating "internet" and "broadband," and you somehow also missed the part where I quite clearly say that I know some people can't help themselves and we need assistance programs to help them... so I guess what I'm seeing is you're a confirmation biased douche-bag dumb-fuck who can't read or comprehend.
For example, girls in black communities who get pregnant as teenagers usually get jobs and do pretty well, contrary to myth.
No, they don't - there's no greater indicator that someone will be living in poverty than being part of a single parent family. The stupid choice was allowing ones self to become pregnant as a teen - that they then own up to it and become responsible doesn't really matter since the bulk of the "damage" is already done - they've completely limited their chances and choices.
I will throw this out there, again, too - we're not talking about internet access, we're talking about broadband internet access. You don't need broadband to send email and fill out applications, and somehow, some way, millions of poor people across the country have managed to get jobs that required them to have internet access.
The founders who wrote the Constitution were lawyers, they knew about prosecutions, and they limited the power of government to prosecute people. They didn't limit the power of government to engage in public works. They knew that governments had to build lighthouses, ports, canals and roads, and run the post office.
Yes and no.... for example, they realized a national company to deliver mail was necessary (as opposed to a bunch of local ones trying to work together), but they don't run it. It's USPS.com and not USPS.gov for a reason. And while they realized the necessity of some infrastructure, they did not give power to the federal government to do it, they quite explicitly left it in the hands of local governments.
Even if that were true, we're not talking about providing internet, not "broadband." And what's amazing to me is how all of those poor people have somehow managed to get jobs at McDonalds and WalMart without this initiative.
I'm not talking about a "work house," it's a place to live... if people don't want to live there, they get a job and move out. That's the incentive to not be lazy while, at the same time, providing the necessities for people who simply can't work.
Many have also supported it. There are some minor factual disputes (like the number of words spoken during the day), but the fact that some parts of women's brains are different sizes than men's (some bigger, some smaller) is not in dispute, nor is the fact that, during puberty, males and females are subject to high levels of different hormones.
Just because you WANT an egalitarian society doesn't mean one can magically exist, or that we're all basically the same... if you want to ignore scientific fact that certain parts of the female brain are different sizes than men's, then you're really no better than creationists who think the world is 6k years old.
There are some people who just get a malicious enjoyment out of condemning the laziness,
bad habits and inferiority of others.
Why do you want to take that simple pleasure away from him?
No, the real difference here is that the people that don't want to subsidize poor people think the poor people are not inferior, they're mostly just making terrible life choices - we thing they could do better. What liberals seem to believe is akin to the "soft bigotry of low expectations" applied to lower class. What I want is for people to help themselves. Given the realization that some people simply can't, I accept assistance programs... but not "broadband."
Government IS bad... necessary, but BAD. That's why the founders of the U.S. wrote the U.S. Constitution - specifically to limit government. That the government couldn't help but corrupt, side step, or shred the constitution is only proof.
I'm sorry, but "Obama haters" didn't make this up. My problem is that Bush Jr. is just as liberal at handing things out as Obama, but democrats still convinced all the poor people that it was Obama.
Then it seems like the poor people working there already have internet, then, don't they? Most poor people working crap jobs like that seem to have smartphones, somehow. I think the keywords here are "broadband" vs. "internet." Why exactly do they need broadband?
Will "the internet" show you directions to the library where you can use a public internet system?
Of course it will.
I agree with pretty much everything you said, though - what are most people going to do when handed free internet? Facebook? And of course they can afford a computer to do all this with, right? Or is that the next thing we'll be handing out?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm like that. I actually wouldn't mind rewriting most of the stuff I've written, but it all works and I can understand what things I wrote 10 years ago are supposed to be doing. But like the GP, even while I'm writing I often feel like I could have done it a better way - not the nitty gritty coding, but the approach I took to begin with. I think the overall sentiment is there's always room for improvement, even if the code is good and works, but you can't keep changing or you won't finish (and I rarely get a chance at version 2 where I work).
Well, you're off by at least an order of magnitude, and likely a lot more. If you look at official police misconduct numbers for example here, you'll see that something around 1% of police officers are involved in serious complaints each year.
...
And keep in mind these are reported official cases of misconduct. Recent analyses have shown that lots of questionable actions taken by police while on duty are not prosecuted or investigated thoroughly
You're misusing the statistics and twisting them to fit your preconceived notions of how terrible police are. Around 1% get complaints, but that doesn't say how many are valid. The second paragraph quoted doesn't change that... in fact, it adds nothing to it... 10% could get complaints, it doesn't make 10% guilty of wrong doing.
As far as not talking to police, you're again missing context... if you're under arrest, then don't talk to police. Otherwise you're likely just being an asshole and obstructing justice. If you say something incriminating before being read your Miranda rights, it's inadmissible in court... and of course, you can only say something incriminating if you've actually done something wrong. If you haven't done anything wrong, there's no reason not to talk to police.
Yes, I thought about what an asshole you are belittling me for consuming "subsidized garbage" when you know nothing about me.
Right... they provide a kiosk for people to submit applications. So I don't see the problem. BTW, you're wrong about most of those places - since most of them are franchises, they are owned by a local owner; I don't even frequent fast food places that often, but have seen plenty of people asking for, and getting, paper applications. I'm not saying people don't need help, I'm saying internet is NOT a necessity - but we're not even talking about internet access, TFA is talking about BROADBAND.
U.S. Constitution explicitly says the right to bear arms cannot be infringed. It doesn't say "guns," it says "arms." No, it doesn't make sense for an individual to have an ICBM, but given the point of the amendment, I'd say any personal arms should be legal for law-abiding citizens. But instead of just denying people the right clearly protected in the constitution, if you disagree, the only really "legal" way to block it is to pass an amendment clarifying which arms. But we don't need to follow the constitution anymore, anyway... the government has slowly "interpreted" away most of the meaning already, which is why the government grants itself the right to fully automatic weapons, but not citizens.
Then when people say the reason for the amendment is for the citizens to protect itself from a tyrannical government, you say "like you can defend against bazookas and automatic weapons and hand grenades and Apache gunships!" Completely oblivious to the fact that the government has granted itself the right to have those weapons and taken it away from individuals, explicitly subverting the purpose of the amendment, and you don't see the problem with that.
No, I think he got it - just in a slightly more wordy, round-about way. If you ask Europeans if they'd want to live in Texas, most of them picture cowboys walking around with holsters and it being like the "wild west." They don't really seem to get that it's often the most "liberal" cities that have the worst problems.
No kidding, I'm not defending thus guys actions, but what do authorities expect to happen, when they are repeatedly caught breaking the law them selves, and hiding behind their badges. Remember it's the 95% of authority figures that make the 5% looks bad.
#1rule in America today is "Don't talk to the police" for many damned good reasons. They can shoot you if they feel like it and as a matter of policy. They can lie to you. They will frame you. They will spy on you, innocent it not. They will confiscate your money, your property, your freedom and your life, with no judge or jury involved.
Frankly, I'm surprised this doesn't happen more often.
That's patently absurd.... "Don't talk to police" is for the people asking for trouble. Don't be a dick to police who are doing their job well. My father was a police officer for 20 years and somehow managed not to shoot any black people or violate anyone's rights. That's 99.9% of police officers. They cannot shoot you if they "feel like it." Sometimes police officers commit crimes and get away with it, but you've been brainlessly skewed by the media if you think that's the "norm."
My father asked me if I ever considered being a police officer, and I told him straight out I don't have the patience for assholes like you.
That seems true, but those people should be punished - the reaction shouldn't be to restrict everyone else even more.
I agree with helping those unable to protect their own rights, I don't agree with protecting people unwilling to protect their own rights.
Your ideology is incredibly short-sighted and selfish as fuck.
No, I actually don't believe teaching a man to fish is shortsighted or selfish. You are also one of the many people conflating "internet" and "broadband," and you somehow also missed the part where I quite clearly say that I know some people can't help themselves and we need assistance programs to help them... so I guess what I'm seeing is you're a confirmation biased douche-bag dumb-fuck who can't read or comprehend.
For example, girls in black communities who get pregnant as teenagers usually get jobs and do pretty well, contrary to myth.
No, they don't - there's no greater indicator that someone will be living in poverty than being part of a single parent family. The stupid choice was allowing ones self to become pregnant as a teen - that they then own up to it and become responsible doesn't really matter since the bulk of the "damage" is already done - they've completely limited their chances and choices.
I will throw this out there, again, too - we're not talking about internet access, we're talking about broadband internet access. You don't need broadband to send email and fill out applications, and somehow, some way, millions of poor people across the country have managed to get jobs that required them to have internet access.
The founders who wrote the Constitution were lawyers, they knew about prosecutions, and they limited the power of government to prosecute people. They didn't limit the power of government to engage in public works. They knew that governments had to build lighthouses, ports, canals and roads, and run the post office.
Yes and no.... for example, they realized a national company to deliver mail was necessary (as opposed to a bunch of local ones trying to work together), but they don't run it. It's USPS.com and not USPS.gov for a reason. And while they realized the necessity of some infrastructure, they did not give power to the federal government to do it, they quite explicitly left it in the hands of local governments.
If something's subsidized for me, then it's already subsidized for them... so what are we talking about?
Even if that were true, we're not talking about providing internet, not "broadband." And what's amazing to me is how all of those poor people have somehow managed to get jobs at McDonalds and WalMart without this initiative.
I'm not talking about a "work house," it's a place to live... if people don't want to live there, they get a job and move out. That's the incentive to not be lazy while, at the same time, providing the necessities for people who simply can't work.
Many have also supported it. There are some minor factual disputes (like the number of words spoken during the day), but the fact that some parts of women's brains are different sizes than men's (some bigger, some smaller) is not in dispute, nor is the fact that, during puberty, males and females are subject to high levels of different hormones.
Just because you WANT an egalitarian society doesn't mean one can magically exist, or that we're all basically the same... if you want to ignore scientific fact that certain parts of the female brain are different sizes than men's, then you're really no better than creationists who think the world is 6k years old.
There are some people who just get a malicious enjoyment out of condemning the laziness, bad habits and inferiority of others.
Why do you want to take that simple pleasure away from him?
No, the real difference here is that the people that don't want to subsidize poor people think the poor people are not inferior, they're mostly just making terrible life choices - we thing they could do better. What liberals seem to believe is akin to the "soft bigotry of low expectations" applied to lower class. What I want is for people to help themselves. Given the realization that some people simply can't, I accept assistance programs... but not "broadband."
Government IS bad... necessary, but BAD. That's why the founders of the U.S. wrote the U.S. Constitution - specifically to limit government. That the government couldn't help but corrupt, side step, or shred the constitution is only proof.
And why should only rich people be able to watch internet porn? Do we want a truly equitable society or not?
Votes.
I'm sorry, but "Obama haters" didn't make this up. My problem is that Bush Jr. is just as liberal at handing things out as Obama, but democrats still convinced all the poor people that it was Obama.
Then it seems like the poor people working there already have internet, then, don't they? Most poor people working crap jobs like that seem to have smartphones, somehow. I think the keywords here are "broadband" vs. "internet." Why exactly do they need broadband?
Exactly... food, shelter, clothing - sufficient to preserve health. Not internet.
Will "the internet" show you directions to the library where you can use a public internet system?
Of course it will.
I agree with pretty much everything you said, though - what are most people going to do when handed free internet? Facebook? And of course they can afford a computer to do all this with, right? Or is that the next thing we'll be handing out?