That's some high-quality calculation, right there. Maybe if the spending were expressed in terms of a taco chart, instead of a pie chart, you'd be able to understand it.
Wouldn't a taco chart just be the top half of a pie chart?
Right? isn't that what American schools and TV have been teaching for the last 30 years? Nerds aren't cool - facts are open to interpretation - everyone is special - you can eat more than you grow... When you have a society rewarding irrationality, what do you expect? Rigorous science?
Considering that I'm done growing, if I didn't eat more than I grow, I'd die of starvation.
Interesting interpretation of what GP said. Not in context, but interesting. Obviously he meant eat more than you need to grow and sustain yourself, i.e., get fat -- and of course we can argue that getting fat is growing, just in the wrong direction; but again, that would miss his point.
Here's the thing, there are no enlightened few. There's just a few equally irrational people whose irrationality makes them think they are rational and all knowing.
... or settle into the second tier like Britain after World War II (that is, after empire).
But that's the point... the U.S. has been treating Russia far worse than Great Britain. The U.S. actually consults with Great Britain and [at least pretends to] value her input. If you want to make friends with someone, treat them better than you think you have to. There have been several times when the U.S. could have used Russia's help (in the U.N. Security Council if nowhere else) in regards to the Mid-East (Iraq, Iran, and Syria come to mind).
But the U.S. has soured the relationship by treating Russia with at best benign neglect or as an irrelevant has been.
though if it doesn't get its public debt under control, it will be neutered
Is this 1980? What the hell does Russia care about...anything?
This attitude is a large part of the problem. American presidents since Bush the First on have held this attitude, which over time, has served to poison the relationship.
If missile defense is truly to protect against rogue states, why not ask Russia to cooperate on a join defense system that can protect the US, NATO alliance nations and Russia? It seems that bilateral cooperation would go a long way toward easing fears that we're trying to weaken Russia's position, and I would imagine such an extensive missile defense network would make rogue ballistic launches significantly less threatening on the international stage.
Cooperation was actually proposed by the Russians. IIRC, the Russians wanted to have their finger on a "kill" switch for the system. There is also concern about sharing sensitive military technology with them.
Ego. That's what's going on here. And the powers that be in Russia are willing to risk a complete throwback to the cold war era.
I'm not convinced it is necessarily Russia's fault. Every American president since the wall came down (Bush the Elder, Clinton, Bush the Lesser, Obama) has at best ignored Russia and at worse treated them as children to be chided or acted as if the cold war was on going.
None of the presidents have acted like anything changed since the wall came down; none of them have treated them as equal partners on the world stage; none of them have acted like they are potential friends; none have given them have given any respect -- and by "respect" I mean the common decency of acknowledging that they have a right to an opinion. Hell, that they might be useful allies. The Russian experience and insight with Islamic countries could have proved useful over the last 10 years.
Treat anyone as poorly as we've treated Russia and eventually they'll get belligerent as well.
Is it too late to change the relationship? Who knows. Lost opportunities are always easier to spot than emerging ones.
Dear fucking idiot: The defense shield has always been to defend North America, not Europe. Have you not read the news at any point in the last 5 yrs? And if not, why comment on something you don't know about?
And of course the French showed they were a bunch of pacifist pansies when it came to toppling Gaddafi.
They promise to tweak one or those or the others depending on which votes they're lacking in the current campaign. But the old people seem the most popular.
Old people are the most popular because old people are most likely to vote.
The under 20 crowd is the least likely to vote, so deficit spending is okay (and deficit spending is going to negatively impact the under 20 crowd the most).
I don't know anyone who's offended by veganism -- but I know plenty of people that are offended by vegans. There's a major difference. I fall into the classical liberal camp of "I don't care what you do in the privacy of your own home -- I don't care what you do with your own body." But I do want you to extend me the same courtesy -- and too many vegans don't.
I don't know if it's their low self-esteem that causes them to have to force their world view on everyone else or some other mental defect common to totalitarian do-gooders everywhere. In general, they pull the same bag of psychological tricks as Catholic priests of old -- a combination of guilt and moral superiority (of course, it is only more moral in their own eyes -- the rest of the world thinks "man, you should experience what you're missing.").
Again -- I don't care that you're a vegan. Good for you. But don't try to interrupt me from enjoying my steak.
Gee, I know a child of a vegan mother who's not that bright; obviously, you're wrong.
Why was this post marked "redundant"... especially when it was one of the first? It's a nice, short, sarcastic jab at substituting anecdotal evidence for scientific study.
Hence why I say that we need a trial to discover facts.
No. Trials are when the prosecutor thinks they have enough evidence to obtain a guilty verdict -- based on the evidence. Not on leaks. Not on innuendo. The investigation -- before the arrest -- is when the authorities try to obtain the facts. The current rush to judgement and trial by media is going to make it impossible for Zimmerman to get a fair trial -- assuming that the evidence that neither of us knows about -- points sufficiently to his guilt.
If there's enough evidence for a trial -- and some judge actually thinks its possible to seat an impartial jury -- and said jury actually finds him guilty, at that point, by all means, fry him. But this public witch hunt without the facts is nauseating.
I've tried to stick to the indisputable facts in forming my opinion on this case (of which there are few),...
Are you admitting that you're decided guilt or innocence without knowing the all the facts? Or do you really think that all the facts have been released?
I don't see many people here arguing that Zimmerman should be convicted. What I see is many people (myself included) arguing that the facts presented so far are clearly very murky, and that the guy should be arrested until a proper trial can be held to determine his guilt or innocence. If he's smart, too, he'll ask to waive jury trial, that way he's much more likely to get an impartial ruling under the circumstances.
I happy that you have some insider information and know all the facts. Many of the relevant facts have not been released (how do I know -- because they are never all released to the public at this point). But I'm happy that you're omniscient.
How many Slashdotters argued voraciously that Hans Reiser was innocent before all the facts were in? How many people signed the anti-Apple-FoxConn petition before the basis was found to be a hoax?
Aren't those protesting -- asking for "justice" (code word for arrest and conviction) -- engaged in the same sort of vigilante justice that got Trayvon killed?
Yes. I know, it's more politically correct to demand Zimmerman's head than to wait for facts to emerge. It's better to react to the distorted photos and the doctored 9-1-1 tapes then to wait for those who are dealing with all the facts.
Please, go ahead, mark this as "troll" because it doesn't fit your world view -- and you certainly can make all the correct decisions without really knowing what happened.
i know this will get me downmodded - but why is this something that makes sense?
imho those organs (which are most likely needed) now just go to waste, because those people will get killed either way
The concern is that someone may have a mock trial and be condemned to death just because their kidneys (pancreas, liver,...) are a match for the ailing party chairman.
No,no. I'll give him computer scientist. Considering how utterly craptastic software has been, There is very little expectation for computer scientists to actually do anything right.
Computer Science is the only profession next to Meteorology where you can be wrong most of the time and keep your job.
I don't know. Most senators are re-elected for life.
QT controls are not designed with either the user or the UI designer in mind (and they're not easy to learn to program for, either). AND, they're ugly! Designing layouts with QT seems to be built around a philosophy that the application developer should not actually have much control over how the controls are rendered at runtime, but the end user should somehow understand how to reconfigure everything about the application's visuals to his liking. Plus, as much as nobody wants to hear it, no cross-platform IDE holds a candle to a vendor provided solution such as Visual Studio or Borland's very fine offerings.
I admit to not having used Visual Studio in a while -- and I have never used.NET. I have programmed extensively using the Qt framework and find your comments about Qt to be completely off the mark. If you want to control your Qt widgets programmatically, you can. If you want to "skin" them with CSS, you can. If you want to drag-and-drop design your layouts, you can.
I'm old school -- I code everything by hand and find Qt to be very simple and straightforward to use. I also have found that I can have complete control over my widgets. If you don't want to use QLayout (QGridLayout, QHBoxLayout, QVBoxLayout,...) then just implement QResizeEvent and take pixel level control over where your widgets to go and what their sizes are.
Having used MFC (yes, I'm showing my age), I find that the Qt approach is far more powerful. The signal-slot mechanism for inter-object communication decouples class dependencies offering a much cleaner design. The event propagation through the class hierarchy is another sound approach. I find overall classes are much simpler to manage with far less inter-class dependencies.
Quit being pedantic and arguing semantics. You know what people mean.
Your arguments certainly indicate one who is either confused or you've been in an echo chamber for so long that you forget that words have meaning. Most technical people realize you can't arbitrarily redefine words to mean what you want in the middle of a discussion. To do that you'd have to be a politician where words have no meaning beyond what they want them to have at the time.
If Anonymous Coward had wanted to refer to a subset of corporations then it should have been specified. Instead he made a blanket statement that can be proven to be asinine. Specifically.
Corporations always do what's necessary to bolster their bottom line and it is always at the expense of people.
By all means, post an example - just one would be more than sufficient since I stated an absolute - of a corporation lobbying on the behalf of the public good AND that is detrimental to their profits.
Please note that Anonymous Coward makes no condition on a subset of corporations. Now you want to turn around and say "his words are true because anything that proves him wrong is outside the test case." Seriously? Are you really that stupid? Is your thinking really that defective? I don't know where you got your degree, but you should demand a refund.
Corporations always do what's necessary to bolster their bottom line and it is always at the expense of people.
By all means, post an example - just one would be more than sufficient since I stated an absolute - of a corporation lobbying on the behalf of the public good AND that is detrimental to their profits.
Just one to blow me out of the water and I'll kiss goatse on the ass.
If you tell the executive branch, "Hey a whole bunch of D-bags in Congress are being bought and paid for," I'd bet they'd be willing to at least take a look.
The White House will only care if the member of Congress are of the opposite party (note: this is true regardless of which party controls the White House)
You can look this one up: median rent compared to median wage.
Thirty years ago it was somewhere around 25%, now it's pretty close to twice that. What that means is that for about half of the working population of the United States, it takes about half a month's work to pay the rent.
My first boss after college used to tell us "if you want to double your income, get married."
Inflation in the housing market deviated from standard inflation during the '90s with the beginning of the housing bubble. The government decided everyone should be able to afford a house and encouraged Freddie/Fannie to make sub-prime loans. You're experiencing one of the end results.
The benefit of the collapse of the housing market is that we may have housing costs return to the standard inflation line.
So how come one of the least capable species when it comes to fighting capability naturally based on the weight and food requirements on this entire planet won?
It's because we used our adaptable brain to subvert our surroundings wherever we ended up.
Because our evolutionary opponents weren't violent enough. They hunted our ancestors, had a tasty snack, but let enough of our ancestors go that the species evolved and continued. We on the other hand are willing to exterminate species. A species can't evolve once its exterminated.
How did we, humans, end up dominating the earth over other creatures?
Bad time to be out of mod-points. Completely agree with you. Even recent events shows that from an evolutionary perspective, violence works -- especially if one is willing to take it to the level of ethnic cleansing.
Note: Just because it "works" doesn't make it "right" and certainly doesn't make it "civilized".
Slashdot Mirror
That's some high-quality calculation, right there. Maybe if the spending were expressed in terms of a taco chart, instead of a pie chart, you'd be able to understand it.
Wouldn't a taco chart just be the top half of a pie chart?
Right? isn't that what American schools and TV have been teaching for the last 30 years? Nerds aren't cool - facts are open to interpretation - everyone is special - you can eat more than you grow... When you have a society rewarding irrationality, what do you expect? Rigorous science?
Considering that I'm done growing, if I didn't eat more than I grow, I'd die of starvation.
Interesting interpretation of what GP said. Not in context, but interesting. Obviously he meant eat more than you need to grow and sustain yourself, i.e., get fat -- and of course we can argue that getting fat is growing, just in the wrong direction; but again, that would miss his point.
Here's the thing, there are no enlightened few. There's just a few equally irrational people whose irrationality makes them think they are rational and all knowing.
Bad time to be out of mod-points. I'd mod you up.
... or settle into the second tier like Britain after World War II (that is, after empire).
But that's the point ... the U.S. has been treating Russia far worse than Great Britain. The U.S. actually consults with Great Britain and [at least pretends to] value her input. If you want to make friends with someone, treat them better than you think you have to. There have been several times when the U.S. could have used Russia's help (in the U.N. Security Council if nowhere else) in regards to the Mid-East (Iraq, Iran, and Syria come to mind).
But the U.S. has soured the relationship by treating Russia with at best benign neglect or as an irrelevant has been.
though if it doesn't get its public debt under control, it will be neutered
Could not agree more.
Is this 1980? What the hell does Russia care about...anything?
This attitude is a large part of the problem. American presidents since Bush the First on have held this attitude, which over time, has served to poison the relationship.
If missile defense is truly to protect against rogue states, why not ask Russia to cooperate on a join defense system that can protect the US, NATO alliance nations and Russia? It seems that bilateral cooperation would go a long way toward easing fears that we're trying to weaken Russia's position, and I would imagine such an extensive missile defense network would make rogue ballistic launches significantly less threatening on the international stage.
Cooperation was actually proposed by the Russians. IIRC, the Russians wanted to have their finger on a "kill" switch for the system. There is also concern about sharing sensitive military technology with them.
Ego. That's what's going on here. And the powers that be in Russia are willing to risk a complete throwback to the cold war era.
I'm not convinced it is necessarily Russia's fault. Every American president since the wall came down (Bush the Elder, Clinton, Bush the Lesser, Obama) has at best ignored Russia and at worse treated them as children to be chided or acted as if the cold war was on going.
None of the presidents have acted like anything changed since the wall came down; none of them have treated them as equal partners on the world stage; none of them have acted like they are potential friends; none have given them have given any respect -- and by "respect" I mean the common decency of acknowledging that they have a right to an opinion. Hell, that they might be useful allies. The Russian experience and insight with Islamic countries could have proved useful over the last 10 years.
Treat anyone as poorly as we've treated Russia and eventually they'll get belligerent as well.
Is it too late to change the relationship? Who knows. Lost opportunities are always easier to spot than emerging ones.
Dear fucking idiot: The defense shield has always been to defend North America, not Europe. Have you not read the news at any point in the last 5 yrs? And if not, why comment on something you don't know about?
And of course the French showed they were a bunch of pacifist pansies when it came to toppling Gaddafi.
They promise to tweak one or those or the others depending on which votes they're lacking in the current campaign. But the old people seem the most popular.
Old people are the most popular because old people are most likely to vote.
The under 20 crowd is the least likely to vote, so deficit spending is okay (and deficit spending is going to negatively impact the under 20 crowd the most).
Not sure why you get offended by veganism, ...
I don't know anyone who's offended by veganism -- but I know plenty of people that are offended by vegans. There's a major difference. I fall into the classical liberal camp of "I don't care what you do in the privacy of your own home -- I don't care what you do with your own body." But I do want you to extend me the same courtesy -- and too many vegans don't.
I don't know if it's their low self-esteem that causes them to have to force their world view on everyone else or some other mental defect common to totalitarian do-gooders everywhere. In general, they pull the same bag of psychological tricks as Catholic priests of old -- a combination of guilt and moral superiority (of course, it is only more moral in their own eyes -- the rest of the world thinks "man, you should experience what you're missing.").
Again -- I don't care that you're a vegan. Good for you. But don't try to interrupt me from enjoying my steak.
Gee, I know a child of a vegan mother who's not that bright; obviously, you're wrong.
Why was this post marked "redundant" ... especially when it was one of the first? It's a nice, short, sarcastic jab at substituting anecdotal evidence for scientific study.
Hence why I say that we need a trial to discover facts.
No. Trials are when the prosecutor thinks they have enough evidence to obtain a guilty verdict -- based on the evidence. Not on leaks. Not on innuendo. The investigation -- before the arrest -- is when the authorities try to obtain the facts. The current rush to judgement and trial by media is going to make it impossible for Zimmerman to get a fair trial -- assuming that the evidence that neither of us knows about -- points sufficiently to his guilt.
If there's enough evidence for a trial -- and some judge actually thinks its possible to seat an impartial jury -- and said jury actually finds him guilty, at that point, by all means, fry him. But this public witch hunt without the facts is nauseating.
I've tried to stick to the indisputable facts in forming my opinion on this case (of which there are few), ...
Are you admitting that you're decided guilt or innocence without knowing the all the facts? Or do you really think that all the facts have been released?
I don't see many people here arguing that Zimmerman should be convicted. What I see is many people (myself included) arguing that the facts presented so far are clearly very murky, and that the guy should be arrested until a proper trial can be held to determine his guilt or innocence. If he's smart, too, he'll ask to waive jury trial, that way he's much more likely to get an impartial ruling under the circumstances.
I happy that you have some insider information and know all the facts. Many of the relevant facts have not been released (how do I know -- because they are never all released to the public at this point). But I'm happy that you're omniscient.
How many Slashdotters argued voraciously that Hans Reiser was innocent before all the facts were in? How many people signed the anti-Apple-FoxConn petition before the basis was found to be a hoax?
Aren't those protesting -- asking for "justice" (code word for arrest and conviction) -- engaged in the same sort of vigilante justice that got Trayvon killed?
Yes. I know, it's more politically correct to demand Zimmerman's head than to wait for facts to emerge. It's better to react to the distorted photos and the doctored 9-1-1 tapes then to wait for those who are dealing with all the facts.
Please, go ahead, mark this as "troll" because it doesn't fit your world view -- and you certainly can make all the correct decisions without really knowing what happened.
i know this will get me downmodded - but why is this something that makes sense? imho those organs (which are most likely needed) now just go to waste, because those people will get killed either way
The concern is that someone may have a mock trial and be condemned to death just because their kidneys (pancreas, liver, ...) are a match for the ailing party chairman.
No,no. I'll give him computer scientist. Considering how utterly craptastic software has been, There is very little expectation for computer scientists to actually do anything right.
Computer Science is the only profession next to Meteorology where you can be wrong most of the time and keep your job.
I don't know. Most senators are re-elected for life.
QT controls are not designed with either the user or the UI designer in mind (and they're not easy to learn to program for, either). AND, they're ugly! Designing layouts with QT seems to be built around a philosophy that the application developer should not actually have much control over how the controls are rendered at runtime, but the end user should somehow understand how to reconfigure everything about the application's visuals to his liking. Plus, as much as nobody wants to hear it, no cross-platform IDE holds a candle to a vendor provided solution such as Visual Studio or Borland's very fine offerings.
I admit to not having used Visual Studio in a while -- and I have never used .NET. I have programmed extensively using the Qt framework and find your comments about Qt to be completely off the mark. If you want to control your Qt widgets programmatically, you can. If you want to "skin" them with CSS, you can. If you want to drag-and-drop design your layouts, you can.
I'm old school -- I code everything by hand and find Qt to be very simple and straightforward to use. I also have found that I can have complete control over my widgets. If you don't want to use QLayout (QGridLayout, QHBoxLayout, QVBoxLayout, ...) then just implement QResizeEvent and take pixel level control over where your widgets to go and what their sizes are.
Having used MFC (yes, I'm showing my age), I find that the Qt approach is far more powerful. The signal-slot mechanism for inter-object communication decouples class dependencies offering a much cleaner design. The event propagation through the class hierarchy is another sound approach. I find overall classes are much simpler to manage with far less inter-class dependencies.
Quit being pedantic and arguing semantics. You know what people mean.
Your arguments certainly indicate one who is either confused or you've been in an echo chamber for so long that you forget that words have meaning. Most technical people realize you can't arbitrarily redefine words to mean what you want in the middle of a discussion. To do that you'd have to be a politician where words have no meaning beyond what they want them to have at the time.
If Anonymous Coward had wanted to refer to a subset of corporations then it should have been specified. Instead he made a blanket statement that can be proven to be asinine. Specifically.
Corporations always do what's necessary to bolster their bottom line and it is always at the expense of people.
By all means, post an example - just one would be more than sufficient since I stated an absolute - of a corporation lobbying on the behalf of the public good AND that is detrimental to their profits.
Please note that Anonymous Coward makes no condition on a subset of corporations. Now you want to turn around and say "his words are true because anything that proves him wrong is outside the test case." Seriously? Are you really that stupid? Is your thinking really that defective? I don't know where you got your degree, but you should demand a refund.
Yes there is a line.
Corporations always do what's necessary to bolster their bottom line and it is always at the expense of people.
By all means, post an example - just one would be more than sufficient since I stated an absolute - of a corporation lobbying on the behalf of the public good AND that is detrimental to their profits.
Just one to blow me out of the water and I'll kiss goatse on the ass.
The Sierra Club is incorporated.
Greenpeace is also a corporation.
If you tell the executive branch, "Hey a whole bunch of D-bags in Congress are being bought and paid for," I'd bet they'd be willing to at least take a look.
The White House will only care if the member of Congress are of the opposite party (note: this is true regardless of which party controls the White House)
You can look this one up: median rent compared to median wage.
Thirty years ago it was somewhere around 25%, now it's pretty close to twice that. What that means is that for about half of the working population of the United States, it takes about half a month's work to pay the rent.
My first boss after college used to tell us "if you want to double your income, get married."
Inflation in the housing market deviated from standard inflation during the '90s with the beginning of the housing bubble. The government decided everyone should be able to afford a house and encouraged Freddie/Fannie to make sub-prime loans. You're experiencing one of the end results.
The benefit of the collapse of the housing market is that we may have housing costs return to the standard inflation line.
"I'm too good for that job" against the work (ie., working as a burger flipper or a stripper).
I'm pretty sure if I tried working as a stripper people would abandon the place.
So how come one of the least capable species when it comes to fighting capability naturally based on the weight and food requirements on this entire planet won?
It's because we used our adaptable brain to subvert our surroundings wherever we ended up.
Because our evolutionary opponents weren't violent enough. They hunted our ancestors, had a tasty snack, but let enough of our ancestors go that the species evolved and continued. We on the other hand are willing to exterminate species. A species can't evolve once its exterminated.
How did we, humans, end up dominating the earth over other creatures?
Bad time to be out of mod-points. Completely agree with you. Even recent events shows that from an evolutionary perspective, violence works -- especially if one is willing to take it to the level of ethnic cleansing.
Note: Just because it "works" doesn't make it "right" and certainly doesn't make it "civilized".