If you have managers who were taught in MBA school that you don't need to know anything about widgets to run a widget-making business, they're gonna believe that similarly it isn't required that the programmers know the business to program for it.

Cue all the Lefties who like to post fake oppositions to "those (over there, in that other group, somehow) stupid SJW's" when they feel exactly the same about things.

Para1: That, as you must know, is begging the question, from the other side's POV; e.g. http://www.cairco.org/issues/a...
And yes, I agree, I would definitely not want to see another Constitutional Convention; I fully admit that the U.S. Constitution ill-represents the will of the American people today. And therefore there really should be one, even though my POV would lose.

P2: My support for tazing is completely independent of the nature of the crime. It's only if there's resisting arrest, and sufficient law enforcement personnel have not arrived yet to overpower the suspect without.

P3: Obama's 2016 federal budget is $4 trillion. The DOD's 2016 budget for the F-35 is $11 billion, or 0.275% of the federal budget. If it's worth cutting, then it should be, even if it is only a drop in the bucket.

I think you guys should skip the Atari graphics and just start them off with OpenGL. In asm. Okay, just kidding about that last part*, but I'm half serious about the first; the future is 3D printing and VR and the like, and I think having 3D reasoning being developed early, to where later it would just be natural to them, would be beneficial.

*Actually, something like 6502 asm was pretty simple and straightforward.

p.s. As an added extra bonus, then maybe the next generation in Hollywood might finally stop making films where the characters don't think to look for the creature(s) in the directions above and below them!</movie_pet_peeve>

p.p.s. And a sysadmin/Lunix/open-sores background/fetish might give you a woody over things like Python, but C-like languages show no sign of ceasing to be where it's at.

I'll guess you moved to Wyoming or Montana.

I'm skeptical that there really still is such a thing. Reliably. They seem like GOP SCOTUS appointees, to me.

I like that.

My understanding is he's been saying those things in books he's written, long before he ran for office.

And political speech should be held to an even higher standard. Carson Brian Williamsed himself.

p.s. Don't take this as my being anti-Carson. I'm thrilled he, as a non-politician, has risen to become a front-runner. I wish Carly were up there too.

RG's new look

My guess is Bernie Sander's Vermont; I'll bet RG has turned into a gun-rights-advocating socialist.

"We stand by what we wrote, which is why we changed it."

Yep, that's definitely sticking to one's guns.

"We arrived at C, which we've stuck to by retracting it, by assuming that A leads to B, an assumption we neglected to mention in our piece."

Questions:

1) Do you really have to apply first to a college to be offered a scholarship? I assumed that for something like a sports scholarship, the college would in a sense apply to you. And some scholarships aren't even offered by the institution, but by a third party, is my understanding. Presumably to go anywhere.

2) Why did Ben repeatedly say he had a full scholarship to West Point, when he could've just said he had the equivalent of one? His describing things in (probably knowingly) wrong terms is troubling.

..don't get it.

Capitalism and socialism can be thought of as being approximately at opposite ends of the spectrum of goverment intervention in peoples' lives, financially. Where in capitalism people are left to work out amongst each other who gets how much (i.e. the many, for the many), in socialism the government decides (i.e. the few, for the many).

You may object and say only "1%-ers" -- i.e. also "the few" -- can afford to hire people, but in pure capitalism there's nothing stopping the little guy from trading goods produced and services performed with each other. I'm guessing that would be your idea of homogeneous-minded and -cultured small communities engaging in your "distributism".

Charity is not really on this spectrum (except so far as socialism is forced "charity", which is not really charity at all). I don't see anything in capitalism that *requires* one to maximize profits. In pure capitalism, the government stays completely out of our financial affairs, so I'm free to give away some of my services, or charge someone less because they've fallen on tough times and I want to. (And charge someone else more, because I feel like it. That would be freedom.)

And of course outside of the business of my livelihood, I think even in socialist societies you can give away money any time if you really want to. Well, except if it's for "subversive" causes, like religions or opposing political idealogies.

So I see charity as not between them, but on top of them.

Luckily reality doesn't require your belief. And the reality still is, you get a vote. Don't like the candidates, then run yourself. Or get someone else you know to run. The political party won't pick your kind of candidate, then start your own party. Just because something takes a lot of effort doesn't mean it's not available. It's not illegal to have candidates you like on the ballot. It's legal, it's just not easy. (Thank goodness; I for one like a lot of inertia in our system, overall, even though I'm one who wants things quite a bit different than they are today.)

That's what she said. (Carly Fiorina that is, in the debate last night.)

Notice that the point of the JE wasn't disputed, just criticized.

Instead of counter-arguments explaining exactly why and how it's as easily intellectually dismissed as was indicated, it was met with an attempt to take it on a tangent, and a questioning of the propriety of even having Conservative speech here in the first place. (Or really anywhere, when you think about it, because Conservative speech is so denialist and offensive.)