Comment Re:Idiots (Score 2) 62
Not even all American SENATORS believe in that "playbook". Never mind the actual population.
Not even all American SENATORS believe in that "playbook". Never mind the actual population.
...when every programmer (and tech support person, and manufacturing person) in the US can get a job, that's the time for US operations to be looking for foreign help.
But since age, health, formal schooling, in-country location, and credit score are widely and consistently used to deny highly skilled US programmers jobs -- I am very confident in saying that Mr. Graham has not even come close to identifying the "programmer problem" from the POV of actual US programmers. All he's trying to do here is save a buck, while screwing US programmers in the process.
Do it his way, and the US economy will suffer even further at the middle class level as decent jobs go directly over our heads overseas, while, as per usual, corporations thrive.
This is exactly the kind of corporate perfidy that's been going on for some time. Graham should be ashamed. He represents our problem. Not any imaginary lack of US based skills.
The only problem with your slander is that many of us that abhor the notion of creating an inferior underclass have no problem with the idea of importing equals and we often quite vocally say so.
Perpetrating the current immigation regime for importing tech talent is mainly advocated by those that seek to take advantage of the weak. They want an exploitable labor pool that they have leverage over. Corporations want people they can easily abuse.
Discreet mathematique are the basis for computing
Not at the semiconductor junction level.
You are confusing computing with computers. Indeed, a "computer" used to be a human being implementing algorithms with a mechanical adding machine, and then were tube-based electrical systems, and in the future may use something wholely other than semiconductors; computing, however, remains the same. A bubble sort is still a bubbble sort.
If the main text of a religion isn't a reliable guidebook to that religion, how can we determine if anything is?
Obviously, we can't.
What made you think we could?
All major (and most minor) religions present huge diversity. Within Christianity, the bible is taken as everything from vague metaphor to the "inerrant word of God." The Koran for Islam, the same. Buddhist practice ranges from meditative to non, from vegetarian to non, from rigidly scientific to the most laughable crystal-gazing nonsense you've ever heard of. New agers.... that's a basket so broad I don't even have a clue as to what it really means, although I have to say, I've rarely come away from someone's description of their new age ideas thinking "wow, that made sense." OK, actually, never. But I figure it could happen.
In addition to actual sect differences, there are practitioner differences, and they range all the way from non-believers who are there for the social aspect, to rigid adherents to every jot and tittle in every book (and some, like the Catholics, have quite a few books.)
For my part, I figure, if I want to know what someone thinks, just ask them. Unless I have specific relevant evidence, I don't assume people fit into standardized boxes. I have found that to very rarely be true.
Well THAT is fucking offensive, the way you said "codifying" it sounded like "codpiece".
Yes? Well then...
Baldric... Bring me... The Black Russian!
Needless to say, by disagreeing, I mark myself as an un-person.
Needless, pointless, and untrue. Someone else may so choose to regard you; you, however, are not that at all, and anyone who takes the attitude that you are, as you put it, an "unperson", is solely responsible for that attitude. You're still you, just as worthy as ever.
Consider the source, soldier on. Defy invalid social norms.
Some things are just not done, and are socially unacceptable this is one of them.
Socially unacceptable is one thing. And the appropriate response from you when faced with something you identify as such is also social: adjust your respect, relationship(s) and commentary according to the social cues you are given.
Relying on coercion and/or violence exerted by your government so you can assure that the general social environment is only populated by speech you approve of is something else entirely. It reeks of abject failure on your part, and on the part of your legislators. Such government-based active repression is one of the very few things that is more despicable than intentionally offensive speech presented without even a suggestion of humor.
> But as an athiest, my very existence is 'offensive' to muslims.
I'm an atheist as well. And I am aware that some Muslims proactively take offense because of my lack of belief.
However, you should be aware that of the five pillars of Islam, none say or imply one word about "hating atheists." That's just crap out of the Koran, which is a mish-mosh of uncorrelated and unordered quotes. Only fanatics take the violent sections of the Koran seriously. Not that there aren't enough fanatics to go around, of course.
> Are you suggesting that I should commit suicide to appease the Muslims?
Not in the least. I wasn't suggesting anyone should commit suicide, or in any way alter who or what they are. These are not things that give offense. You have not chosen to be atheist in order to give offense, have you? I presume you're atheist because you find that to be a comfortable state of mind, one that correlates well with what you observe of the world around you. Nothing to do with giving offense at all. I'm not wrong, am I? If I am, please let me know... that's a whole 'nuther bag of wolverines.
Simply being (existing as) atheist is not giving offense. That is the same as the case where someone is simply "being atheist" or "being Christian" or "being Muslim" or "being a rock collector."
When such provokes an "offended" response, we are merely seeing examples of the common practice by muddy thinkers of taking offense for any, or no, sane reason...
> Go Fuck Yourself
Jackson ends up telling NO story - just a vomit of computer-guided coloured lights. Sound and fury, signifying nothing...
I was more worried about replenishing Red Vines, than seeing what happened next.
As a result, the money is stolen not from the customers, but from the bank itself.
"Party on, Garth."
Bizarre argumentation. One hardly knows where to begin with your assumptions and red-herring analogies.
To address your first point - with it's ill-considered implications of parity between democracy, capitalism and actual worth or value: Commercial success at this scale simply indicate how thoroughly that vulgarity and thoughtlessness have been cultivated and encouraged by this media-driven culture over the past 90-100 years or so.
When people make "free choices" in such a society, they do so in appalling ignorance, with a maximum of empty stimulation. This is the post-Edward Bernays world.
The vulgarity of this decadent age. So? He rapes the corpse of JRR Tolkien and that's just fine if it earns a bauble and a penny?
That was a case of "resource constraint".
Exactly.
I AM one of those "small musicians and authors".
"No matter where you go, there you are..." -- Buckaroo Banzai