it boggles the mind
> ... 12 gauge shotgun ... .45 ACP ...
Ouch, I'm not 6' 200 lbs; meassumes the kick on those kinds of things would be a skosh jarring in my as-yet-un-powder-burned hands. Besides, even with practice I don't assume I could really hit anything whilst in freak-mode. But I've got a decent flight of stairs between two walls barely 3 feet wide, that I ought to be able to spray some pain down if need be across most of its width, I'm hoping.
So yeah, I figured I'd need to practice, so the tip on cheap ammo to do so with is appreciated. As long as that stuff has roughly the same "feel" when firing as the home defense load you mention.
For myself, I would probably never own a handgun, just because of that form factor's association with crime. Like (part of) the reason I gave up alcohol in my late twenties, with all the negative stuff associated with its use/abuse. Just a personal quirk of mine.
My sis and her hubby just bought a place out in the country, and I want to go build a berm on that land and do my practicing there. It's a bitch getting there I'm told, but I don't know if gun ranges in town let you bring in a shotgun, and outdoors seems more fun anyways.
it boggles the mind
Ouch, but this was back in the "eye for an eye" days. I would interpret that and it's immediately following "on the other hand" verse as, if you strike out at an intruder in the dark, you can't see well enough what you're swinging at to consciously avoid trying to kill the intruder. Nowadays we have implements of instant light. (Altho I suppose one could intentionally leave it dark so as to be able to exercise said loophole! ;)
But then there's the whole thing about the OT times being pre-JC, and all they had was the Law, until its ultimate fulfiller came. I kinda see the OT as trying to teach us (among other things) that God is resolutely about justice, and then the NT that God is also firmly about love. I see the lesson of the OT being over, and as followers of Christ we should be looking to forgive others as much as we can, and strive to turn the other cheek to the extent feasible.
But I don't doubt your perspective is highly motivated by your having a family, and can't rule out that mine might be different too if I wasn't only responsible for myself.
it boggles the mind
> I ask you to make fewer assumptions in the future based on the author's name alone.
No, it's still overall a sound policy, it's just that you're so bonkers in politics, it's easy to forget that, as far as I can recall, you seem like a pretty normal guy when it comes to everything else.
> Now granted some would say that if you wait you are foolish, and gambling with your life or whatnot.
Luckily for me it's my life to gamble with. I'm perfectly satisfied with cowering upstairs with a shotgun while I'm being burgled out of my entire downstairs' possessions, if it means not risking killing someone.
it boggles the mind
I was also thinking about getting a baseball bat for behind the front door. But I think you have to be above average in size, really, to look enough like you mean it with one. And I'm not. (I would need something more like this!)
it boggles the mind
But drunks aren't typically careful to be quiet. A merely disoriented person probably would've given it a few tries, in confusion.
it boggles the mind
p.s. And I would never defend property with a firearm. Even if I lived in a state that allowed it, which I'm almost sure of that I don't. I'd only risk an aggressor's life to defend my own. Because I really do want to be able to get through my whole life without killing or harming anyone. It just sucks that it's really the responsible thing to do to look into acquiring some means of deadly force, because of the remote but real threat of violence by uncivilized people.
it boggles the mind
(Took a chance seeing who's post this third one was, hoping that since mine wasn't a political JE it might not be toxic.)
As I had been wondering that if this person was trying to get in, why not really try and get in, so thanks for posting this as a possible explanation. Still uncomfortably brazen of this person. I'll always be locking it now even if just stepping out to another side of the building for a minute. I suppose with the blinds flapping so wildly, this person could've looked in and saw the back of someone sitting in a recliner and could've decided to take the chance that I had fallen asleep and that maybe it was potentially a grab-and-go opportunity.
it boggles the mind
I should probably get the real thing, just in case. What's extra bothersome about this is that the intruder could not be expecting to be a mere burglar in this case, but instead must've been okay with being a robber.
Home invasion robberies (by two or three perps) in my larger region have been in the news, and women sleeping with a window open have gotten raped (by lone pervs).
I've never been robbed or assaulted in 48 years of life so far, but I might not always be so lucky, and should think about that. I've thought about getting a shotgun, and holding my ground upstairs (assuming I'm awake) and being prepared to blast someone for coming up the stairwell after being warned. It would be firing towards my own garage and not into any of my neighbors' directions.
But there's other complications, I hear, in Soviet California, and it would be taking up and keeping up a new hobby. And it kind of sucks when bad people cause you to make demands on your own time, on account of them.
it boggles the mind
Then they would've first stuck their key in the deadbolt lock part above the door handle, to unlock the door first before squeezing the handle. Like I do when I don't park in my garage and hence come in this door. But they didn't.
And if they were expecting it to be their place and left unlocked, they would've squeezed the handle and pushed into the door to open it. LIke I do after just dragging my trash cans down to the front of the building. But they didn't do that either.
It was just a careful squeeze of the handle, so I only heard the slight creak of that mechanism, and didn't hear what I presume was the gentle push to see if the deadbolt had been left unlocked.
And I lied; my head is more like 18-24 inches from that door handle. But still at ear level where I sit. And if that mechanism wasn't oldish and creaky, I might not have heard it at all.
I haven't been the victim of any major crimes, just a few extremely weird incidences (like coming out to my car after work one day and finding someone trying to get into it, who claimed to mistake it for his own), so I don't consider it, but I should.
That Left vs. Right is only or mostly a distraction is a Leftie/Libertarian tactic. They are of course highly distinctly opposing philosophies, even if the extreme divide between the philosophies is not fully represented in Congress.
I don't know about the banks, but corporations are only trying to buy favor in regulations and subsidies, so that they can be more successful. This is tyranny in that it's anti-competitive and hurts the average citizen, but is nowhere near where the vast majority of the tyranny we're experiencing nowadays is coming from: The GOP's progressivism towards more and more perfect national security, and the Left's progressivism towards more and more perfect outcomes in almost everything in general.
TL;DR: That cartoon pushes the standard commie line that the institutions of capitalism are our biggest problem.
p.s. What it does get right is that, since neither major party cares one whit about libertarianism, in that sense it's meaningless which one you vote for, because neither will advance that cause. (But then that's hardly the only meaningful factor, whereupon there becomes a huge difference between the parties.)
Fun with SQL Server 2012
Another thought is this: I've written my share of T-SQL in the same spirit as this. And that is, what I have come to philosophically consider to be doing too much on the database side. An RDBMS's strong suit is retrieving data, not string manipulations. And your requirements for the data to be built into a string and of a certain format is really a business rule, where even if you're not doing a tiered architecture physically, it isn't a best practice to mix business layer concerns into what is logically the data layer.
I'm to the point where I consider the T-SQL language's non-DML/non-DDL stuff to be only as a last resort, such as needing to send already formatted data into say SQL Server Reporting Services, where you might not have middle tier(s) and the luxury of processing the data via any other means before it gets presented. But for application work, I want to start using the database to do just enough calculating to identify what data I want retrieved, and then the rest of the crunching that needs to be performed being done in C# or whatever (which will typically be more expressive and efficient for this).
Then in your case you wouldn't have the recursion going on in the database side to construct the string.
p.s. Over time the DBA's can alter the indexes on tables, and the SQL Server query analyzer can adopt different cached data access plans depending on the amount of and distributions within the data. So timings can change, so if you were already close to a limit...
Fun with SQL Server 2012
In SQL's order of operations, ORDER BY is done after SELECT, where in that 2nd query the string is built up, and then somehow some sorting is supposed to happen. It could be harmless or fouling things up, and it might not be what you want judging from the 1st query where the string is built in Sequence order.
These secular priests just keep slicing on the drive
...scientist Chen thought his results were fake but accurate?
And therefore, in his mind, and according to popular thinking, would still be worthy of dissemination. That is, if he felt it was an important enough truth, that needed to be gotten out.
IOW, in a world where the mindset of "the ends justify the means" has taken over, can he be blamed? If the world tells him that that's nothing to be ashamed about in other cases, why would he and other scientists see it as unethical in science?
I hold him less culpable, and society more culpable. And even more than society, I hold people of integrity, however few there might be left, culpable for this aspect of modern society.
As a libertarian-minded Conservative, people have a right to do what they want, but they don't have the right to not be called out as the unwise that they are. We let those who are morally, spiritually, and intellectually compromised, who flock to (or rather who are driven to, re: RG's mentioning of who is ultimately behind the degradation of the human conscience) positions of influence over society, have their says without it being answered.
I blame the silence of the good. Imagine if every stupid and/or dangerous idea, that started to get traction, was swiftly followed up by people pointing out exactly how ridiculous and wrong it was, and thoroughly debunked it. Doesn't mean there still wouldn't be casualties, as far as lost souls and lost moral compasses and lost reason. I just don't think there'd be so many, if we didn't let B.S. prevail.
Well, as Lefties say, "we're all in this together" now, and we gotta cut costs for the collective, because it's the system that's important, and not individuals' lives. So, breathing is optional. (I.e. you may have to take one for the team here.)
It occurs to me, Lefties decry capitalism in part because of the unfairness of the "survival of the fittest" aspect of it. Yet that aspect is only absent in socialism in pie-in-the-sky theory. The Left is just offering a trade for a different kind of "some do well and some get screwed".
In capitalism, your wealth determines the quality of your care. In Leftism, Leftists determine the quality of your care. I'll take the impartiality of it being a factor of my earning potential.
Evil Walmart Overpaying New Hires In Vicious Capitalist Head-Fake
IIRC they were paying their full-timers a minimum of double the minimum wage, and even part-timers were getting 30% more than the state's arbitrary minimum. Probably not even due to market forces, per se; that surely enables it, but I assume it's the Christian outlook of its closely-held close-holders*.
An organization that values its workers and voluntarily pays them good wages; something the Left ought to approve of. Except for the fact they're a corporation (evil!), in the private sector (more evil!), non-union (super evil!), and pay for the 16 out of 20 birth control methods that aren't abortifacients (like conservation, taxes, and regulation, it's never enough**).
*Sorry for the dribblage, but Lefties are making a federal case out of the phrase "closely-held" lately.
**Progressives are like Wall Street analysts/company growth obsessed. It's never enough to progress to a good place, and then maintain that. There always has to be more, more, more.
private enterprise discouraged
But what if I don't sell to foreign nations, to other states, or to Native American tribes? Then according to that, the feds at least, have no grounds to get involved in my commerce.
I suppose then your idea of communities is that they be what I'll call right now "trade immunity" zones, where as long as it's intra-community, it's sans regulations (besides things like fraud laws)? And only trade outside the community would be where, in a sense, "foreign policy" considerations would come into play/get factored into trade regulations?
private enterprise discouraged
(which idea, of course, is a philosophical concept, and has precisely 0 ethnic, ...
Too much acknowledgement lately of Leftie assertions that they don't even believe so are not worth (semi-validating by) acknowledging...
...beyond groups and individuals seeking unfair advantage through government, are necessarily Leftists' goals for America. Crony capitalism because capitalism unmolested is horrifically "unfair". And oligarchy because the unwashed masses can't be trusted to make the right decisions, so they need them to be made for them by a more enlightened elite guard.
Movement of wealth up out of the middle classes, moving us into the lower classes, in conjunction with our illegal^Wundocumented immigrant policy, is exactly what the Left needs to upend this evil economic system and convert America into supporters of a much more "fair", socialist future.
For "unnecessary" treatments or procedures?
Today we hear, from all media outlets, that annual pelvic exams are no longer necessary for most women. Shazam! Gee, that little gamble should save the government a bunch of money (in the short term).
Kind of like the story of some years ago about how women no longer need annual mammograms beginning at age 40. Some "U.S. Preventive Services Task Force", an "independent panel of experts" you see, declared they can wait until age 50, and then only get it every other year. Because:
If cancer is suspected on a mammogram, more tests are ordered. If no cancer is found, this false-positive result can mean unnecessary procedures, added expense, time lost from work and anxiety, experts say.
Ya, that's much worse than being sure you don't have something that can frickin' kill you.
But it's worse for the collective, and that's what's important now. Expect more occurences of widely-disseminated news reports of treatments and procedures that we're all used to, being declared unnecessary as we progress further with DemocratCare*.
*(No Republican voted for it.)
About that 'not one smidgen of corruption'
If I ran on the social conservative platform representing what I actually believe, the only vote I should win is for crucifixion.
MH42 said something similar recently, that with his social positions he couldn't get elected to a water board. So anyone who's socially Conservative shouldn't bother running for office/we should only have the morally misfiring to choose from?
(And you disdain wielding power over people, but you'd do it to enforce your social views? That's not much disdain then.)
it boggles the mind
So tonight around 12:30 am, and I'm sitting downstairs watching TV. It's hot right now, so I had the windows closed and the central A/C on. Set to 76, so it hadn't run in a while.
My "living room" (it's an open concept downstairs in my townhome condo, so it's really just one big room) part is right by the front door, and I have my ceiling fan on at its highest speed during the hot months.
So the vertical blinds are flapping away in the window by the front door, and my TV is on this end, facing towards the front door, so at my doorstep you can hear that it's on.
And my recliner is 12-18 inches from the door handle. At about ear level where I'm sitting.
So I'm sitting there, and plain as day, someone tries the door handle. Now the setup here is that the door handle turns freely (although outside there's nothing to turn, you grab the handle and depress the latch with your thumb), but there's a deadbolt above it, keyed on the outside and with a switch on the inside, and that's what locks the door.
So whoever it was, clearly could tell that someone was home, up/awake, and most likely downstairs, given the blinds were flapping and the TV was semi-blaring (I play it a little loud, having lost some hearing or quality of from too much loud heavy metal with headphones, such that sometimes I have a little trouble making out what someone said).
And unless the person's watched me for a while and knew I was single and lived alone, would think potentially there was another person in the house, because I left the light on in my 2nd bedroom upstairs. (It's a CFL, and those I like to not cycle too much, and just leave on if I plan to come back into the room in a little while.)
And yet this person tried to come into my house. Now I've got 3 other doors around me, to my neighbors' places, but I can hear when they come and go from my recliner, because one door is right next to mine and the other two are in the next building just a skinny walkway's width away (we're packed in pretty good here).
Now I've heard reports of prowlers coming into peoples' homes when they're asleep at night, through an open or unlocked window. But this person had evidence to the contrary that the folk(s) who live here had gone to bed.
Which brings to mind the question, what if I hadn't had the top latched. What was this person prepared to say or do upon entry into my house, to the person(s) downstairs they would expect to encounter.
This person did not ring my doorbell nor knock on the door. I can't hear doorbells of my neighbors', but I can hear knocks on their doors, and their weren't any, so it wasn't some lost person in need of some kind of assistance.
The last neighbor who left their light on all the time for our walkway moved out recently, and my outside light on the light-sensitive controller broke a few years ago, so it's been completely dark out there, unfortunately. Apparently I should get that fixed and be the one who leaves that switch on all the time.
And maybe it's time to think about getting my first firearm. (And some lessons some where, having only ever shot a BB gun before.) I live in a nice neighborhood, but maybe that makes us a target.
And since I'm a heavy sleeper, maybe even getting an alarm system. Although I think those only detect a window opening, and not breaking.
Which leads to the other question that had come to mind about this person of the night. S/he was evidently prepared to confront this residence's awake occupants, so why not break a window to get in. The only thing I can think of is that the person wanted the element of surprise, and quietly slipping in through a mistakenly unlocked door would enable that, that a shattering window would not.
And yet occupants could come from other parts of the place, potentially with guns, so even if surprise was had on a downstairs occupant, it still potentially could've gone very badly for the presumably would-be intruder.
Oh, and no one tried the keyhole on the deadbolt, so it wasn't a neighbor who was just coming home drunk or something and walked down the wrong walkway, in this row of buildings.
And so I'll close with the ultimate question that came to mind: Why does really weird shit, happen to me. And no it wasn't a dream/I wasn't asleep, I'm a night owl kind of person, and had slept in until about noon-thirty today. I was watching stupid Friends reruns, after coming downstairs to catch Stossel's "Security and Liberty" special from 10-11. (Who's a whole topic unto himself.)
weather.com's Faces of Death
"Featured Videos" for just the afternoon of today included:
* (Something like "boy dies after stunning collapse", before I saw some of these others and noticed a pattern)
* "Boys Perish Soon After This Selfie"
* "Teen Dies While Attempting World Record"
* "Exchange Student Falls to Death"
<Goes there right now to see if there are any more>
* "Study Abroad Trip Turns Tragic" (the still for the video showing a young guy's face)
* "Cause of Death Released for Teen"
What the heck is it with their fascination for young people dying? I just wanted to see how fucking hot it was today (work on-site in fed. govt. bldg, and they don't give us A/C, in SoCal). I don't want to see death porn or whatever.
p.s. "Incredible Photos of People Laying in a Week's Worth of Trash" WTF?
I'll bet the book is better
So they're advertising a new movie coming out, starring then presidential candidate BHO's penpal, that explores the fascinating idea of given that we use only about 10% of our brains, what would it be like if we were to use 100% of them.
And apparently the answer involves lots of guns (and some knives), kung fu, car crashes, 'splosions, and gravity-defying flying across the room brought on by blunt force trauma, that curiously, for the amount of force that would be occuring, does not instead have a disintegrating or hole-punching result.
private enterprise discouraged
From some FA on the Hobby Lobby ruling:
"But the government points to a long line of cases holding that for-profit companies may not use religion as a basis for failing to comply with generally applicable laws."
Earlier this month we learned that the FAA decrees that it's legal to use drones for fun, but not for profit.
Why do I lose rights in America simply by virtue of trying to make money on my own time, or with my own association with others?
why shouldn't it work both ways
Stossel's show was irritating tonight. The topic was Conservatism vs. Libertarianism. As a Libertarian, Stossel misrepresented Conservatism, and various Conservatives were on appealing to the same things Lefties appeal to; the greater good, majority norms.
Stossel said he used to be a Liberal, so that explains enough of an inability to think straight about things to be able to be a Libertarian. But it's shocking how Conservatives seem blithely unaware that effectively saying it's okay to legislate morality, means then the other side can legislate its morality on us. (And where we're only for it in certain cases, the Left is for doing it all but a few cases. I.e. it's a patently dangerous idea, and used vastly more against us than in what we favor.)
I might journal about some of the topics later (maybe if I can find a refresher of my memory of it on youtube), but the show spurred a chain of thinking on a particular topic that led me to the following.
Let's say I'm a landlord, and I'm also bigoted against homosexuals (which I am, but not in the following way), and refused to rent to them. Most people would say the government should step in and force me to rent to them. I.e. Despite homosexuals offending my sensibilities, I should be forced to associate with them anyways. Because otherwise they could potentially have a hard time finding a rental place to live.
Now let's say that instead I'm a landlord, and I don't refuse to rent to them, but I'm a very outspoken disparager of them in the region, and the homosexual community knows it. And let's say the homosexual community represents a significant %-age of the region. What if I'm having trouble keeping the complex full all the time? Should the government force some homosexuals to live in my complex and pay me rent, despite my offending their sensibilities?
And what about quotas. Lefties say that if a community is 10% Black, then roughly 10% of the programming jobs in that community must be filled with Blacks. Else there's racial inequities.
Well janitorial jobs, at least around here, seem to be disproportionately filled by Hispanics. Should the government tell Black people in that area that 10% of them need to switch careers into the custodial arts?
It seems like either quotas are a good idea or they aren't. And it seems like if it's good to force association between parties when one desires not to do so, then it's good.
If it's one thing I can respect Libertarians for, it's at least they're consistent*
*Well, except for their being pro-choice, which flies squarely in the face of being for individual rights.
TV idiocrisy is coming
It started with the ability to show a network logo watermark. Networks would show a translucent version of their logo in the bottom corner for a few seconds, after resuming from a commerical break. Evidently someone who makes tons of money thought it was important that you be reminded where you're seeing the currently airing content.
I didn't mind that, at all. Stupid, but not really obnoxious. Then they moved onto the phase where they left that up all the time. I took me a while to train my brain to tune that out. Until I was able to, it annoyed the hell out of me.
Then they moved on to the next phase, of colored-in/opaque logos, that they leave up all the time. I.e. blocking part of the content (in that corner), all the time.
Then came promos for other shows on the network, after coming back from an ad break, that took up much or all of the bottom portion of what you're fucking trying to watch. I.e. all the commercials played, the movie has resumed, and you're trying to get back into it, and then here comes an overlay commercial, while the movie is still going. Sometimes it's animated, so basically you miss part of the movie they're showing.
So last night I'm flipping thru, and FX is showing some Ice Age or other cartoon animals movie (not at all my cup of tea, so I don't really know). Now I don't know if it had just come back from break or not, but it popped up an ad for the sequel to whatever it was, evidently now playing in theaters or coming soon.
I.e. they've taken the overlays from just promos for the network, to content-related adverts. I don't have for example a "smart TV", so maybe this has already started in other things.
I used to look forward to progress. When it meant a better picture, or more hp at an affordable price point, or easier and more advanced programming ways.
It's like standard of living is a bell curve. As technologies and advancement of capabilities has increased, our standard of living increased. But ever increasing capabilities doesn't seem to equal better quality of living, forever. My DVD player says "operation not permited by disc". WTF? Cars now have gadgetry to wrench the steering wheel from you or press the brakes behind your back. My dad can't go to a favorite finance site anymore, because it watched a few of his clicks and now doesn't show him general news but only the things relating the few topics it last remembers him clicking on. (I could try deleting cookies, as long as it's not fingerprinting him in other ways.)
So I don't think it's just old-fogeyism. I just like things that are better, not worse. And when you start running out of ways to make things better, I guess it's human nature to just keep on going, because the capabilities do. Didn't we used to be thinkers, or is that just another faulty assumption, about how the world works, of mine from childhood?
p.s. I have the flu, and feel miserable so I'm probably more babbling here than my normal level of babbling on.
note to Slashdot
You put "Microsoft Won't Bring Back the Start Menu Until 2015" on the front page on Monday June 02, 2014 @11:25AM. It got 407 comments.
Then you put "Windows 8.1 Finally Passes Windows 8 In Market Share" on the front page on Monday June 02, 2014 @07:10PM. It got only 78 comments.
See what you did there? You put up Microsoft flamebait topics _on the same day_. This is sub-optimal because all the little Slash spazzes were all tuckered out from whipping themselves into a mindless hate frenzy earlier.
To maximize ad impressions, it would behoove you to space these out to one per day. Thereby also giving Slashdotters a reason to visit each and every day; there would be no more slow news days!
And while you're at it, consider endowing the system with a set of canned posts, for convenience with such topics. Similar to how a greeting card store provides you with the known small set of ways you can say happy birthday, without having to come up with one yourself, Slashdot could for example provide all the typical variations of "The only thing Internet Explorer is good for is to download another browser".
Like the polls, the UI could be a simple list of radio buttons and a Submit button. Present a different list depending on the specific subclassification of flamebait topic, comprised of all the inevitable "insights" that would get posted. And might as well have them post already at +5, and Slashdot would attain new levels of user friendliness, saving the user base collectively a ton of time.
Contact me for my consulting fee amount.
p.s. One more hint: Flip the sign on the Redundant mod and it'll get more use.
the morality of the profit motive
I wrote in a post here today:
When in actuality what it really boils down to is whether one thinks that the death panel effect would be worse under the cost-cutting and profit motive of private healthcare, or the cost-cutting and social engineering motive of public healthcare.
I'm not about to say that capitalism is moral. I'm just saying it's more moral (or less immoral, for those who want it worded that way instead) than the alternative. I know that sounds lame in the sense that ideally we'd have something that's moral, but I'm just coming at this pragmatically here.
I have to assume that part of my preference for the system of unfairness that is the free market must be due to it being the only thing I've ever known. But I think most of it is that it is almost strictly predictable in the outcomes it leads to, and that I accept those outcomes. Sort of "better the devil you know...", but not exactly.
My philosophy on wealth as far as I can remember is that you're working to attain whatever levels you might be able to in life, for greater comfort in life and access to greater luxuries. You figure out how much you want to work and how well you want to live and figure out the balance that's right for you, factoring in the kind of brains, drive, and luck that you know yourself to have.
And then be happy where you are, when you reach that. I don't begrudge the richer man for having a better car than mine, because his fate in life is not mine. I feel sorry for the poorer man, but he probably makes worse decisions in life than I do. Or at least worse from my POV.
So I guess I'm okay with the inequalities inherent in life (like brains and luck) and that are a function of what each individual chooses for himself (like drive).
And consequently what I'm not okay with is forced, collective, man-made alterations to this. For example I'm okay with a rich man offering some kid a scholarship to college and possibly thereby altering his chances of attaining a higher wealth level in life than he normally would. But I'm not okay with for example Affirmative Action.
Firstly in the alternative, it can be more chaotic, being based on man's whim, for whichever kind of men are in power in that era. Today's members of a govt. death panel may decide to favor the young, but tomorrow's may favor the old. Whereas under the profit motive, directors can come and go but the goal stays the same. Profit is a uniting goal and one that's orthogonal to differences in politics/religion.
Secondly, but BD you may say, for now and the foreseeable future a federal govt. run anything will be entirely predictable; predictably Leftist. True in a way, and that's why it's not "...the devil that I don't know". But I also don't like many of the outcomes targeted, not to mention outcomes that I might like but never get achieved.
Capitalism has been very successful in raising standards of living. Leftism, not so much. (Granted, maybe it's in part a function of how corrupted that ism has been.)
In short, unproven political preferences has a large tinge of arbitrariness to me. And part of what's fair and right is that which you can count on.
How do UNIX/Linux people make web applications?
I'm trying to make sense of the dizzying array of languages/technologies purportedly used in the customer-facing portion of the HealthCare.gov site. I understand ASP.NET, JSP, and JavaServer Faces to be web templating engines, comprising 39 files. I don't see PHP or ColdFusion listed. And there's 1635 HTML files. It doesn't seem like all of these could be just static content.
It's possible a lot of them could get their dynamic data via AJAX, and maybe that's what a lot of the XSLT is for. But I think most people these days move JSON back and forth and not XML. But in any event, how are placeholders in the HTML files getting replaced? There's only 23 files between Perl and Python, and 248 Bourne shell files, so are they using [showing my age/what little I know] SED and/or AWK to do this? Or would the .sh's be calling the Perl and Python files?
coding rules of thumb vs. monitor size
I was perusing the comments under the article about a new ultra-wide 3440 x1440 monitor, and this comment sparked a side thought:
[...] I'd consider taking one of these displays and turning it 90 degrees so I can see more of my code at once without scrolling.
This made me think, as monitors have gotten bigger, maybe a certain couple of old programming rules of thumb need to be restated, in terms of something else that is:
1) Wrap your lines of code at 80 columns, and
2) A function generally should not be more than a screenful in length.
MS continues really pissing me off lately
(Aside from the normal level of pissing me off they do every time I have to go into Word or Project.)
1) In IE 11 they got rid of the ability to quickly test your web page with js disabled, by removing that feature from the browser's developer tools window. Now you have to drill down in menus and dialogs and past confirm prompts and change it like a normal user would in the regular browser UI. Why?!?
2) In Visual Studio 2012 they got rid of the ability to record a quick macro to for example play back a series of repetitive editing tasks, by removing the entire macros feature completely. In an IDE? Are you fucking kidding me?!? Now people are saying ya gotta get Notepad++ and copy and paste into that and back. I'm not familiar with that tool, but... WHY!!!!???
3) In Security Essentials for Windows XP they've programmed it to pop up nag screens several times an hour, ever since the OS has gone out of support. It doesn't just pop up once, and its window is always on top so it can't just be ignored. There's apparently no way to disable it and still have the protection aside from installing the previous version if you happen to have a copy of it laying around. So XP is out of support, so no more patches, but why basically force people to uninstall the security suite as well? To get XP machines pwned even faster? Why?!?
In short, WhyTF actually *remove* functionality? It costs virtually nothing to just leave it there.
p.s. I'm in no hurry to upgrade my XP-based netbook, esp. sans any real carrots from MS (and I don't respond well to sticks). So I'm not sure what to do about that, except not use it for anything serious on the WWW. Accepting all serious suggestions (from those who are visible to me here, that is). I don't have a portable optical drive with it.
p.p.s. So MS knew about a remote code execution vulnerability in IE 8 for at least 6 months, and chose to do nothing about it? Hmm, and IE 8 is the latest browser you can install on XP. Ya know, it's almost like they were dropping support for XP early.
DRM in FF
So nerd Lefties are getting their panties in a bunch over Mozilla supporting DRM content.
This is because to them DRM is like so-called "closed source" software, and what Mozilla has done is gone with a permissive license model instead of the GPL.
That is, zero tolerance for that which is opposed, no matter how much that marginalizes your entrant in the market, and therefore also how much you're in a position of power to effect change, does not seem to be the path for the Firefox folks.
Maybe like MS's "embrace and extend", it's "accept until it can be changed". The question is, when is it smart to compromise principles and when isn't it. (Where by "compromising principles" I don't mean "selling out" or something unseemly like that, but just biding your time and/or choosing your battles wisely.) Especially when they're very strongly-held principles.
why I won't buy Windows 8.x
First a parenthetical caveat: I plan on getting the Windows 8 *Phone* OS.
I've been on the lookout for a flagship-model Nokia Windows phone. I still have a flip/dumbphone, and at least for my first smartphone I want a top-end model, to explore, until I learn what I don't need/never use. A Nokia model because I was an adv amat photog in a previous (i.e. film) era, and their emphasis caters to that interest.
And I've been on AT&T (and its prior incarnations for my area) since I got my first, mini brick phone, and the call quality has always been borderline unusable. So it's going to be a Verizon smartphone, and they got a flagship Windows Phone model, the Lumia Icon, earlier this year.
So basically I'm just waiting a little longer until Nokia's "Cyan" software update gets pushed out to people with that model, which will include the OS upgrade from 8.0 to 8.1, and then I'll give it about a month and see if people are reporting success and if there's any problems.
And then I'm just hoping it won't be for mobile what I think is happening on the desktop. And that is, MS technically supporting unpopular OS versions, but not really working at it or giving a shit.
And this is what pisses me off. I bought a new PC (because I fried my previous one, and needed one) with the much-maligned Windows Vista OS, about the time SP 2 for it was being released. So of course I didn't have any problems with it. Yes I did it because I was in a pickle, timing-wise, and had to, but still, I got Vista x64 Ultimate, their most expensive version, at a time when they were probably hurting for sales.
And what thanks do I get? A shitty patch last month that screws my whole system. Works fine on all the Windows 7 systems that I've seen. So I believe the problem is that Vista is purportedly down to less than 3% marketshare, lower than even the paltry %-age that desktop Windows 8 and 8.1 have. I believe that, like Windows XP and IE 6 before that, MS wants Vista to just go away and be a mostly-forgotten bad memory.
Great, so I bought your product in good faith, and I get short-shrift support. I wasn't one of the ones decrying the OS. So what am I supposed to do then. It looks like one can no longer get Windows 7. And I'm sure as hell not going to get Windows 8.x, since people are stupid sheep and irrationally bagging on that bigtime, so MS will probably treat it like Vista as soon as Windows 9 comes out and all the morons flip-flop their tune.
So, there is no way I would get a new Windows version until 9 comes out (some time next year, is expected). That is, unless bad luck, such as an unrecoverable bad patch, befalls me again.
Luckily this one was recoverable, barely. I.e. I was still able to log in via the admin account. And while uninstalling the update didn't do anything, rolling back to the restore point it created before installing it did the trick. But I did a lot of fretting and Google searching, with no success, and was applying last month's patches individually after rolling the whole set back, to track down which one(s) was the perpetrator. I.e. a huge PITA way of spending my time that I don't need.
As it turns out, all just to fix an issue with paths that should be unreachable if someone tricks you into running a .bat or .cmd file off the Internet. I think I'll manage without this patch. I might have to set that update "hidden" in Windows Update, to not be bugged about it every month.
there is no confusing; only ignorance
Regarding this subthread:
my sentiment boils down to:
Learn the language; don't be a lazy ass and whine about it.
If something's part of the language, but you're not familiar with it, that does not constitute it being "confusing".
Americans these days can't cognitively separate their perspective and the more general one. If I find something hard, then it just must be hard, right? I mean, a whole host of other people couldn't possibly have a completely different experience. That's unfathomable to today's human beings.
I've decided that I don't need to live in a big house. Therefore no one does. Therefore there's no moral problem with passing a law that forbids anyone from living in more than a 1032 sq ft abode (like mine). My experience must the universal one.
I should fucking market a line of t-shirts and baseball caps with "YMMV" with a red circle and slash over it. Because no one is capable of the concept donning on them anymore.
A FA on the front page laments that more potholes have gotten fixed in wealthier neighborhoods in some city because their residents were more likely to own smartphones and download the report-a-hole app.
My thinking of course was, yeah, the squeakiest wheel tends to get the grease. That's just how it is, if there's not the gumption or resources to proactively/preventatively frequently attend to every wheel. Such as in city services.
I would think there'd still be a phone number to call to report them, since smartphones haven't always existed, and most everyone has at least a land line. So those who are bothered by them the most get them fixed first.
Doesn't sound terrible, but it's only a meant to serve (and does so very poorly) as just one example of a greater, overall concern: Data analytics could end up reinforcing inequities in housing, credit, employment, health and education.
I'm reminded of a popular, smarmy retort of the past to the accusation of Left-wing bias in the media: Life [itself] has a Liberal bias! The implication intended for conveyance, but not really believed by the utterer, of course, was that Left-wing slant in the content of reports about things in life was not actually injected, but innate. I.e. it's not a problem, it's what's normal.
Well, then: Life reinforces inequities.
But if all these naturally-occurring inequities are bad, shouldn't all naturally-occurring inequities be bad?
How about some we never hear about:
1) The number of news sources
The Left occupies 90-some percent of the news dissemination sources in the country, from news networks (like CNN) to non-news networks (like Comedy Central). Given that probably about 1/3 of the country is solid Left, that should be their quota on programming that distributes news. Or at most 2/3rds of all news-distributing media outlets, since you can also argue that the political middle has been lost to the Left.
2) Positions in (public) education
Leftism is grossly over-represented in academia. Why is diversity in the student body so important but not in the faculty?
3) Voter registration
At least in this state, even in so-called Republican areas the # of registered D's easily outnumbers the # of registered R's. And around here I've heard something to the effect that we've gotten rid of runoff elections being between the highest vote getting D and the highest vote getting R, to just the top two highest vote getters. Which will probably take that disparity and tend to make it even worse.
Maybe Democrat registration should be effectively capped at the current level of Republican registration in a district. For example lets say a city has 4 million residents with 45% registered D and 30% registered R. That's 1,800,000 expected D voters and 1,200,000 expected R voters. To make things more fair, shouldn't the number of D votes counted be stopped at 1,200,000? This still wouldn't guarantee equitable outcomes but it could be a start. Then it would be a matter of absolute turnout, on a level playing field.
4) Intelligence (that is, you never hear about this except from "racists")
Inherited wealth must be confiscated, for redistribution by the state, because it's too much of an advantage those of future generations. Well intelligence is passed down as well, and that's an even bigger factor. Maybe mandatory IQ testing should be performed at an early age, with forced dope ingestion in formative years to "equalize" the IQ of those more gifted.
5) Work Ethic
Cultural and home-life attitudes towards achievement also greatly factor in to outcomes in people in life. Jewish and especially Asian households are guilty of placing expectations and pushing their children to successes in life. Public school alone is insufficient in completely counter-acting this parental-instilled drive.
Maybe Child Protective Services' mission should be expanded. Not only do children need protection from their bad parents, but they need protection from others' good parents, who in raising their own children puts others at a disadvantage.
Some type of mandatory foster care in addition to public schooling might do the trick. Say state-run boarding schools, where you have to send your kids to go live 2 years for every 1 year they live with you, or whatever ratio is needed to eradicate the unfairness.
Why I hate "business developers", part 1
That is, "business developers" in contrast to "software engineers".
I'm at a place with them now, since returning to work after the Great Recession. (And I fear that I might be working with them, when I can find work at all that is, from now on.) I worked with them at my 2nd startup during the dotcom boom (a VB shop). During my time there I once overheard some of the senior developers talking amongst themselves and making fun of C/C++ devs for being nerds, and how in constrast they're "passionate about solving business problems", and not wanting to "get bogged down in the technology". I saw that again in the "about me" section of someone's blog years later, so I suspect it's an actual culture, that I've only bumped into a couple of times in my career so far.
They call themselves "developers", not "programmers". One person at my current shop felt the need to say out loud to the group once that she is definitely not a nerd. I concur. She's a mommie, not a technologist.
They talk about watching sports, and getting blitzed on beer. These aren't kids, some of them are early 50's, so they're not "bro-grammers", they're not the Jersey Shore of developers, they were just probably frat boys in college in their time. They're normals, not nerds They have zero awkwardness in speaking (they make BHO look like a stumbling, bumbling imbecile, in comparison, which he certainly is not), and always know what to do given the social situation.
They generally graduate with IS or MIS degrees as opposed to CS degrees. Or they get a CS degree but at one of the colleges in California's lower tier university system. Like I did*, but unlike me, they generally had to rely on a circle of friends/classmates to help them get through it. You couldn't help but notice these people; they were like wildebeests, always in proximity to their herd, for protection from carnivorous technical coursework trying to overwhelm and weed out the unfit.
*I transferered out of the upper tier system because I didn't want to pay that much/couldn't afford to (running up college debt wasn't what we did back then) . And I didn't want to work that hard, at that point in my life, since my thinking then was it was just to acquire the stupid token piece of paper to finally start my career and stuff of actual importance. (I don't totally agree with that now.)
I remember a classmate who I worked briefly with on a project I think in senior year. (At that school, sometimes larger programming projects were where you could optionally pair up with someone on it. But I never did, thinking that I'm going to have to be able to do this on my own in the real world. But some analysis & documentation assignments were sometimes mandatory pair or group assignments.) He was not a geek/nerd/pinhead/intellectual. He dressed well, spoke well, was smooth, he could be a CEO by now.
Now some people want to do something with computers in their career, not on computers. And that's fine, but they should go into QA or documentation on the way to management or whatever. For things like programmer, sysadmin, network admin, and DBA, that require real technical commitment to nerdy stuff to be able to excel at, the rest of us would appreciate if they'd stay away from those. So we can get our jobs done.
And some apparently have settled on working on computers, maybe giving up the aspirations of ever becoming a suit, but don't want to get too involved with them. A hybrid suit/developer, but 67/33 suit/programmer.
So you get what I have where I'm currently at. Managers love these people because they look and act and talk well, just like them. I hate them because I have to work with them, and on the code that they write (topics of part 2). So it's occurred to me, I'm not just a little out of place, I'm actually in a sense underemployed right now. Not as severely as if I was flipping burgers right now, but still.
In pay and also in what I can do. So I'll probably start looking in another year or so. There's a few more books I want to read to get myself at what I perceive to be a good foundation in this newer (to me) stuff I'm doing. The environment of the business developer has actually been a good place to start, as simplicity and just straightforward grunt it out coding is the rule, so it's good for someone coming up to speed in different tech for a somewhat career shift.
But like I said, since I'm doing web development in a managed language now, vice desktop development in lower-level more hard-core languages before, I fear that I'll never be working with what I consider to be my peers anymore.
Somehow, ideally, I need to find a C# shop where the propensity of them came from a C++ background and not just from Visual BASIC. And where they're not afraid of just a sprinkling of design patterns, and actual software engineering concerns like SOLID, DRY, and (gasp) OWASP. I need to think about a way of determining in an interview what kind of shop it is, without giving it away and offending in my question. (Any suggestions?)
very non-mello cello
The most metal performance with a non-traditional instrument since I discovered there was such a thing as an electric violin. (The second group is much cuter though.)
I used "social engineering" in a sentence a few minutes ago and wanted to look up some kind of official definition. Dang it is getting hard to find the definition that's not just the technical, hacking one.
On a second page of hits I found that Webster's still retains its historical definition:
Management of human beings in accordance with their place and function in society.
(Hey, what could be more moral than that, right?)
I say historical because it no longer describes an alternate state, rather now being concomitant with existence. I.e. it's no longer an "ism", it's an "is". So therefore it's not really notable as its own word anymore.
In general I lament when words, that already have a distinct meaning, get hijacked by the ignorant, and it catches on. Because then we lose the original meaning/no longer have a word to describe the first thing. (Which, of course if you're on the Left, don't mind at all if the politically manipulative meaning of that word pair gets obscured by the technology meaning one.)
"Hacking" is another one. As someone who went through a Computer Science program at a university in the late 80's/early 90's, its original meaning in computers meant to skip desiging and thinking about a program and just diving in to coding it. But I figure some journalist heard the term and grokked that it related to computers somehow but didn't know how, and made the incorrect assumption that it related to breaking in to computers, wrote an article, and the rest is histoire.
And for the latest example, Pest Buy is now running commercials that you should come in and buy Windows tablets there because they've handed some out to their employees first and they've taken them home to learn it, presumably to be better able to tell you how to use Windows 8. But they're referring to this process as "beta testing". Gah!
North Dakota is the new Walmart
I've seen my 2nd news piece in days trying to besmirch North Dakota.
I barely remembered we even have such states, until the Right started talking about it, how in this shitty economy there are supposedly jobs there and good paying ones, in oil industries. Hmm, someplace where capitalism hasn't been suppressed and is very successful, tapping our natural resources that are fossil fuels, well no wonder, it could only have been a matter of time.
Like supposedly a large army of muckrakers descended upon Alaska when Sarah Palin became a perceived threat to the ongoing advancement of Progressivism, it wouldn't surprise me if a Leftie swarm has descended on North Dakota to dig up or invent whatever's needed to counter the message of the possibility of free market prosperity and usage of the planet that's been provided to us.
And the fruits of their labors are starting to come out.
Tea Party RINO
On the way to work this morning a co-host of some local radio station made an interesting point I thought. While "Republican In Name Only" traditionally meant a Liberal Republican, and therefore one who didn't really belong in the party, as the GOP nowadays seems to just want to be Democrat Lite, then to be a Republican is to be a moderate Progressive. Making me not a real Republican. Now I'm the RINO.