Krugman: "All [Paul Ryan] does is make scary noises about the deficit, with mood music, with organ music in the background about how ominous it is, and then propose a plan that would in fact increase the deficit.”

wang-banger · 23 days

Non-sequitur.

wang-banger · 23 days

Krugman doesn't think deficits are good. He thinks that right now, unemployment is worse, and that short-term austerity isn't going to do anything to help the situation.

nativeofspace · 1 month

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiuAI-GuOOc

2coolsaif · 1 month

I was playing CoD with my regular group of teammates recently, and I think our opponents were a little freaked out, because when we matchmade into the lobby one of them said "Whoa. These guys look serious. None of them have X's or numbers in their names!". True story.

kondrat1983 · 1 month

Yes you can! Even if space is a perfect vacuum, you could still swim through spacetime thanks to the weirdness of general relativity. Of course, it would take a very, very long time.

Timmaey · 1 month

Criminal defenses are usually affirmative defenses. Meaning that once the prosecution has proved that you did the criminal act, you have to offer some affirmative evidence if you want to claim a particular defense.

In this case, Zimmerman did shoot and kill Martin - there's no dispute on that point. And in any rational legal system it would then be up to Zimmerman to offer some evidence that he was acting in self-defense.

If Florida laws are different, then they are truly insane.

What if instead, Martin had shot Zimmerman? After all, we know he was being followed, so maybe he reasonably felt threatened. Should the police have arrested and charged him? Would they have? You bet your ass they would.

Timmaey · 1 month

What has people pissed off right now is that Zimmerman hasn't even been arrested. Since there is no dispute that he did, in fact, shoot and kill Martin, there is most definitely a prima facie case to answer. At the very least, the police should have properly investigated his self-defense claim rather than simply letting him walk.

It may well be that Zimmerman acted in self-defense. However, it should be fairly obvious why we should do more than take his word for it.

face1138 · 2 months

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic, but I'm fairly sure that Jesus had a lot to say about poverty and nothing at all to say about gay marriage.

POTATO_IN_MY_ANUS · 2 months

There's conservative, and there's just plain crazy. The GOP leaders have led conservatives to believe that there's no need to compromise on anything ever. Indeed, compromise is a dirty word to the hardcore conservative crowd.

The GOP leadership needs to explain to conservative citizens that sometimes good governance requires compromise. You can still have conservative views on things, but you need to be rational about what you can achieve and about what the country as a whole is prepared to accept.

When the party leadership is pandering to all the worst excesses of the most extreme parts of the movement, they are only hurting the long-term future of that movement.

POTATO_IN_MY_ANUS · 2 months

Healthy democracy requires a functioning and sane opposition party. The GOP has lost its shit, and while that's a short-term good thing for Democrats, in the long term its not in anyone's best interest for there to be only one rational major party in politics.

az4z3l · 3 months

My lifetime MW3 win-loss ratio is over 3 to 1, closing in on 4 to 1. Meanwhile my k/d ratio is comfortably over 1, but well short of 2.

In other words, as an individual, I'm a decent but not outstanding player. But I play with a regular group. We all know how each other plays, and we all value the team win over individual stats. Consequently, we crush poorly organized opponents (which is to say, most of them) on a frequent basis.

If you can't get together 5 people you know, try playing team-tactical, where you only need 3 others to form a complete team.

Having a complete team is important, because it only takes one random idiot on your side to screw things up. Even in team tactical, I would literally rather be playing a man-down (i.e. three versus four), than have our fourth spot filled by a loose cannon.

az4z3l · 3 months

This is not a bug in the game. It is a bug in your teammates. If your teammates are running aimlessly all over creation, enemies will spawn behind you. If your team is well organized and focused on controlling specific areas of the map rather than running around aimlessly, enemies won't spawn behind you.

If you don't have teammates that understand how this works, then you are going to lose to teams that do. Repeatedly.

Mind_Virus · 3 months

This.

I am generally pretty liberal, and tend to be rather unimpressed by some of the things the government and especially the military has done over the last decade. However...

In my opinion Bradley Manning isn't a hero, he was just mindlessly leaking bulk information that had the potential to put innocent troops in harm's way. He wasn't leaking specific instances of abuse of power, he was just throwing a huge amount of stuff out there indiscriminately. In short, he's a dangerous idiot who violated his oath and deserves to be court-martialled.

bclapn · 3 months

Two recommendations. First, try switching up whether you play regular or hardcore:

Hardcore mode changes the balance of which skills are important. Because firing first is more decisive in hardcore mode, a greater emphasis is placed on engineering that situation - controlling the flow of the map, understanding where your opponents are likely to be, etc. Regular mode emphases more micro "arcade" skills required to win an individual firefight, because the initial shot is far less decisive. Consider how you would like to win, and pick the mode accordingly.

Second, play with better teammates. Frankly, playing with a group of random pickup players is going to be an exercise in frustration whatever mode you play. Most players don't understand how spawns work, and in particular don't understand that when they rush midlessly forward looking for kills they are virtually guaranteeing that the enemy will spawn behind their teammates. Play with a group of people who understand how the game works.

When I play with my regular group, I very rarely get shot in the back by someone who spawned there, because my team isn't running all over creation randomizing the spawn. Instead my team is methodically locking down the key areas we need to control depending on the game type.

And one last piece of advice: don't be impatient. Concentrate first on not dying. That means being aware of where your teammates are, and being conversative about how you move about the map. Rushing around looking for kills can sometimes work well, but often just results in a lot of death and chaos for your team. If you are careful and methodical the kills will come.

mercenary-games · 3 months

It wasn't always that way, though. I've been in the tech industry long enough (over 15 years) to remember when contractors were treated pretty similarly to regular employees, at least in terms of being included in company events and whatnot.

What happened was the contractors saw regular employees getting rich on all the IPOs and stock boom of the late 90s, while they weren't getting anything, and decided to sue. The result is that the contractors who sued got a payoff, and then big companies everywhere changed their policies to prevent that ever happening again.

mercenary-games · 3 months

If you treat contractors like regular employees, they may have a legal claim to other employee benefits (for example, stock grants). There have been legal cases like this in the past - Microsoft was famously sued over this issue a decade ago in a class-action suit, for example.

So now, HR departments at many companies have guidelines that exclude contractors. Managers don't offer coaching or career advice to contractors, and contractors are typically exluded from morale events, in order to emphasize that contractors are not employees.

Form your own opinion about whether this sucks and whose fault it is. But those are the facts.

powercow · 4 months

I call bullshit on the notion that increasing capital gains taxes reduces the incentive to invest, since you are taxed on ordinary interest anyway, and at an already higher rate. Unless the capital gains tax is higher than the ordinary earned income tax, there is no marginal disincentive to invest.

So, there is scope to, for example, increase the capital gains tax without affecting anyone's marginal rational decision making. There is no disincentive to invest because you have to do something with your money. Well, I suppose you could deliberately leave it in a non-interest bearing account, but that wouldn't be in your best economic interest.

You say you are in favor of a progressive tax system. The problem with today's system is that we have a regressive system for the very highest earners. For each marginal dollar of income Romney receives he is actually paying less tax than I am, even though I make far less than he does. This is what I mean when I say that he's not paying his fair share. What he does is legal, but that doesn't make it fair.

powercow · 4 months

I'm willing to bet that a good chunk of Romney's income is "carried interest" compensation - this is the way many hedge fund and private equity senior managers are paid. For arcane reasons this is treated like capital gains, hence the 15% tax rate, even though it's really just straight-up earned income and where the "double taxation" argument wouldn't apply even if you bought it in the first place. It's loopholes like this that Romney and the Republicans are dead set against closing.

And to answer your question, I think "fair share" means paying at least a similar proportion of your income to the rest of us. Again, I ask you the question: do you think it's fair that my effective tax rate is higher than Romney's even though he has vastly more income than I do?

powercow · 4 months

Obama would like the rich to pay more of their fair share.

Romney is vastly wealthier than I am, and earns far more annual income than I do. Yet his effective tax rate, at 15%, is significantly lower than mine. Is that fair? I don't think so.

I don't mind paying my fair share of taxes. I don't mind paying the tax rate I currently do. But I do get ticked off when far wealthier people than me are paying a lower rate.

artificialidiot · 4 months

Program A performs the user job, and then takes 1 minute to exit. Program B performs the user job, and then exits immediately. The programs are otherwise identical in every respect.

I argue that program B is objectively better. And in particular, I submit that your argument that program A is merely "pushing the hardware too hard" is obviously bullshit, as evidenced by the fact that program B doesn't seem to have any trouble with it.

Walking the heap pointlessly at the end of execution is not elegant, it's wasted cycles.

artificialidiot · 4 months

Is your argument really that great programmers should prioritize maintaining elegance above making their program objectively better for end users?

Great programmers write programs which solve problems for end users. Everyone else is a poser.

artificialidiot · 4 months

Meanwhile, back in the context of this post, we're talking about what to do in the DLL_PROCESS_DETACH case of DllMain. Which means that your code is the DLL, which was loaded by some process that may or may not be under your control. Perhaps your DLL is a plugin for some other program. Who knows?

Also, who cares whether end-user perception is "objective truth"? Your users don't, they just know what they think about your product.

artificialidiot · 4 months

You probably have separate debug and release versions of your code, yes? Some things are#ifdef'd out (or equivalent) for release, yes?

Well, make the leak detection check one of those things. This is extremely common practice. I'm not sure why you think it's weird.

artificialidiot · 4 months

If you cannot see the potential for performance problems, then you are not thinking hard enough about the problem.

I agree that elegance is a good virtue for programmers. However one should understand that it's only a means to an end. You try to be elegant to reduce the number of bugs, or build software faster, or make it easier to make future versions of it. But ultimately, all that really matters is what the end user perceives.

artificialidiot · 4 months

Sure, if it was all toasty warm in memory then freeing it will be fast. On the other hand, if it had been paged out and the heap manager now need to page in all those pages just so that it can walk the heap to free everything, then it could take a very long time.

Software quality ultimately is in service of the user experience. If your program sometimes takes an awful long time to exit, the user will perceive your program to have poor quality. And they will be right.

sterling2505

TROPHY CASE

sterling2505

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login