I probably shouldn't post this...
-
Why did you move to Texas? I just visited your website and saw that you lived in San Diego, my favorite place to live. Were there no jobs in San Diego? Sorry if I'm prying but I've been trying to talk my husband into moving there for years. Should I abort mission? :confused: Cathy
> Why did you move to Texas? For a few reasons: 1) My dad lives here in San Antonio (1/2 mile down the street from where we bought our house). He's getting on in years and I wanted to spend some time with him. 2) We wanted to buy a house, but we couldn't afford one on a decent piece of land of any appreciable size. The house we bought here is on 3/4 acre and has 2200 sqaure feet of space, and is only 7 years old. In San Diego, the same house would have cost us between $350-500K (depending on the area we selected). It cost us $108K here. 3) I figured "the big one" is gonna hit at any time, and I didn't want to be there. > > I just visited your website > Are you afraid of me now? :) > > and saw that you lived in San Diego, my favorite place to live. Were there no jobs in San Diego? > Plenty of jobs if you like brown-nosing Microsoft. Everyone there has gone internet startup crazy. I actually turned down a couple of jobs, and quite frankly dumped an interview in mid-process. > Sorry if I'm prying but I've been trying to talk my husband into moving there for > years. Should I abort mission? No problem. :) Consider the possible gas/electric bills you'll be paying, the fact that regular gasoline is $1.85/gallon, and the over-inflated price of real estate, and you make the call. I don't know where you are now, but i'd stay there.
-
Let me make myself perfectly clear. By onerous I meant the abandonment of either the first or the second amendment to our constitution not the teaching of respect for life. I have no passion for guns, don't own one, never wanted to, don't belong to the NRA, don't belong to a militia or other such groups. In truth, guns scare me, but not as much as government does. I do, however, passionately believe that my government should respect the constitutional constraints placed upon it. I also passionately believe that I am under no obligation to adher to the views or opinions or legal dictates of any global authority. I only start getting a little nervous when comments are made that seem to imply that, as an American, I am so obligated. When that happens, I start wondering if the black helicopter crowd might have a point, and maybe it is time I went out and bought an assault rifle. So IMHO: 1)Banning "assualt" rifles does little to make the world a safer place. My children could be killed just as easily by a deer rifle, a shot gun or a pipe bomb, or a car, or any number of means available to someone trully intent on harming them. 2)If you don't have a society based upon some sort of grassroots principles of morality, people are going to kill each other in greater numbers. Guns or not. 3)We *do* buy security at the price of liberty. 4)We should fear government and it should fear us. 5)The Civil War taught us that the government *should* be scared of a bunch of well armed rednecks.:rose:
Stan, we are so close and yet so far apart! Yep - gun control will not solve everything, and teaching of respect is a BIG (the biggest, I'd say) part of any solution. But gun control can't actually make it worse, can it? And I can only shake my head in amazement at the statement that a state of distrust between government and citizen is both necessary and desireable ! Finally, I would have thought the the Civil war taught a bunch of rednecks that you can make a noise, but really you can't win in the end, and you'll suffer a hell of lot a long the way. And just maybe if the rednecks weren't armed to the teeth in the first place they'd have tried a slightly more reasonable way of making their point, rather then 4 years of fairly senseless killing ?
-
Why did you move to Texas? I just visited your website and saw that you lived in San Diego, my favorite place to live. Were there no jobs in San Diego? Sorry if I'm prying but I've been trying to talk my husband into moving there for years. Should I abort mission? :confused: Cathy
-
Who is this person masquerading as John Simmons? Why, this is a positively 'logical' and 'well argued' response. The real John would simply 'KEEL US ALL'!! (by the way, your still wrong - guns belong in wars, not suburbs)
-
Austin is the capitol of Texas. I have no idea why they put post boxes on the curb here, but it's the only place I've lived where they did it. I'm sure that part of that rule is so that the mailmen aren't mauled by dogs or fall victim to the average American's scattered claymore anti-personnel mines that are planted in the front yard, or to avoid litigation because the mailman stepped on one of the delicate endangered species of animal or plant life. '
Actaully, think about it, the last options is probably a bigger reason than the one I initially thought. David Wulff dwulff@battleaxesoftware.com
-
You don't think guns were designed to give their designer an advantage in warfare over the guys with the bows and arrows, in the same way that bows & arrows were designed to give an advantage over the pointed stick brigade ? Yes, guns definitely provide an advantage. That's it. They're not designed to kill people. They're designed for anyone wishing to fire a projectile at high speed to do so with minimum effort. Whether that projectile is aimed at a human heart, a human leg, a rabbit, a snake, or just hung on a shelf, is another story. Why does the criminal stop ? Because guns make a loud noise, or because he knows they are an instrument designed to kill people they are pointed at ? I haven't studied criminal behavior but I would assume that the criminal stops because he's afraid of what the gun could do to him. It could kill him or just injure him -- either way he would eventually have to stop so might as well avoid making things worse for himself. Whatever the reason, the gun in this case is a good thing, don't you think? I'm sure target shooting is lots of fun. So is Counter Strike. This does not give good reason for arming the community. If the community can't get their hands on Counter Strike but is responsible with guns and loves to shoot targets, why not? Let them have their fun. I don't think anyone wants to "arm the community". I think it's a few members of the community who seek to arm themselves, for whatever reason. As long as they do their "arming" responsibly, why not? Well, I have an axe for that purpose. It will do nicely, given that in Australia someone who invades my home is unlikely to have a gun. In the US, it's pretty much a given, I'd guess. Well an axe is good, but wouldn't a gun be better? You never know when an American may come around... :) Isn't it better if guns are harder to get for everyone ? Yes, we shouln't just sell a gun to anyone, and as far as I know, we don't. There's a seven-day background check on everyone who buys a gun in the US. The statistics seem to indicate that it's working great, too. Well, if it's not working then let's find a way to fix it without resorting to drastic measures. How about making people take a mini-course on gun responsibility before they can purchase one? There's got to be a way to improve things without treating everyone like a potential criminal. Regards, Alvaro
Yes, guns definitely provide an advantage. That's it. They're not designed to kill people. They're designed for anyone wishing to fire a projectile at high speed to do so with minimum effort. Whether that projectile is aimed at a human heart, a human leg, a rabbit, a snake, or just hung on a shelf, is another story. This is just stupid. Guns provide an advantage BECAUSE they are designed to fire a projectile at high speed towards something with the intention of bringing it harm. I haven't studied criminal behavior but I would assume that the criminal stops because he's afraid of what the gun could do to him. It could kill him or just injure him -- either way he would eventually have to stop so might as well avoid making things worse for himself. Whatever the reason, the gun in this case is a good thing, don't you think? The point is that it's a good thing *because* it's common knowledge that it was designed to point at people you want to hurt. If the community can't get their hands on Counter Strike but is responsible with guns and loves to shoot targets, why not? Let them have their fun. I don't think anyone wants to "arm the community". I think it's a few members of the community who seek to arm themselves, for whatever reason. As long as they do their "arming" responsibly, why not? Well, I'd love to have a go at target shooting myself. I'd be most comfortable with that if the guns were kept at the place where I did it, under secure lock and key. Well, I have an axe for that purpose. It will do nicely, given that in Australia someone who invades my home is unlikely to have a gun. In the US, it's pretty much a given, I'd guess. Well an axe is good, but wouldn't a gun be better? You never know when an American may come around... The axe is for chopping wood, it happens to be by the door and therefore also available if the need arises. Statistically the odds of someone coming to my house with a gun, American or not, are very remote. Isn't it better if guns are harder to get for everyone ? Yes, we shouln't just sell a gun to anyone, and as far as I know, we don't. There's a seven-day background check on everyone who buys a gun in the US. A subset of the people who would clearly pass such a check seem to be the people responsible for the schoolyard/workplace shootings that seem to occur so often over there. And this is my main point. Such unhinged people are less likely to kill as many people if their only option is a knife. They are unli
-
I forgot to mention - new car registration for my 2000 F-150 was $570 in California. This year it would have been $527. In Texas, I paid $53. Next year, it will be $53. I think you get the idea. :-)
I live in the San Francisco Bay area. So the costs are the same but San Diego is a lot prettier, the ocean water is warmer, there is a lot less traffic. I just wasn't sure about the job market there. I lived there for 3 years. I went to U.C. San Diego. After my son was born and I graduated I needed to be near my parents so I moved back up here (free babysitters). I miss it. Thanks for the information. :) Cathy
-
Stan, we are so close and yet so far apart! Yep - gun control will not solve everything, and teaching of respect is a BIG (the biggest, I'd say) part of any solution. But gun control can't actually make it worse, can it? And I can only shake my head in amazement at the statement that a state of distrust between government and citizen is both necessary and desireable ! Finally, I would have thought the the Civil war taught a bunch of rednecks that you can make a noise, but really you can't win in the end, and you'll suffer a hell of lot a long the way. And just maybe if the rednecks weren't armed to the teeth in the first place they'd have tried a slightly more reasonable way of making their point, rather then 4 years of fairly senseless killing ?
Did I say I was against gun control? If I did, let me elaborate. The state of Indiana can ban what ever it likes, and I will obey its laws. All I'm saying is that demonizing a particular type of firearm and then beleiving you are safer because you banned it is stupid. Also, I simply want the federal government to at least pretend it has some respect for the constitution that my ancestors sacrificed so much to bring into existence. And I certainly resist the implication that I should be willing to submit to some sort of international moritorium on firearms. The "family of man" can kiss my rear. If you are an American, Mike, I am absolutely amazed that you would find my comments about our relationship with government to be out of line. The only thing more inherently evil than government is the abscence of government. Government, any government, by its very nature, wants to possess everything you have, your weatlh, your freedom, everything - thats what goverment does, it controls, and it never has enough control. Never. Thats why it wants people to be dependent upon it, so it can control them. And that is why we have a constitution. The Constitution is a legal contract which is supposed to force the government to behave in a manner conducive to our general welfare. Without it, we are on our own. This is why it should be scary to anyone when the most powerful government since the fall of the Roman Empire begins to willfully ignore its constitutional limits. This nation was founded upon the very principle that government is untrustworthy. That was true in 1789 and it is true today. The founders were terrified of the federal government they had creatd out of neccessity, hence the "bill of rights" which was written to clearly limit its authority in relation to the states. Similarly, that government must be made to understand that we have the will and the means to resist it if and when it decides to ignore the limits we have placed upon it. Believeing that is what it means to be an American. Not to offend, but anyone who believes otherwise should move back to Europe. Don't get me started on the Civil War.
-
Did I say I was against gun control? If I did, let me elaborate. The state of Indiana can ban what ever it likes, and I will obey its laws. All I'm saying is that demonizing a particular type of firearm and then beleiving you are safer because you banned it is stupid. Also, I simply want the federal government to at least pretend it has some respect for the constitution that my ancestors sacrificed so much to bring into existence. And I certainly resist the implication that I should be willing to submit to some sort of international moritorium on firearms. The "family of man" can kiss my rear. If you are an American, Mike, I am absolutely amazed that you would find my comments about our relationship with government to be out of line. The only thing more inherently evil than government is the abscence of government. Government, any government, by its very nature, wants to possess everything you have, your weatlh, your freedom, everything - thats what goverment does, it controls, and it never has enough control. Never. Thats why it wants people to be dependent upon it, so it can control them. And that is why we have a constitution. The Constitution is a legal contract which is supposed to force the government to behave in a manner conducive to our general welfare. Without it, we are on our own. This is why it should be scary to anyone when the most powerful government since the fall of the Roman Empire begins to willfully ignore its constitutional limits. This nation was founded upon the very principle that government is untrustworthy. That was true in 1789 and it is true today. The founders were terrified of the federal government they had creatd out of neccessity, hence the "bill of rights" which was written to clearly limit its authority in relation to the states. Similarly, that government must be made to understand that we have the will and the means to resist it if and when it decides to ignore the limits we have placed upon it. Believeing that is what it means to be an American. Not to offend, but anyone who believes otherwise should move back to Europe. Don't get me started on the Civil War.
Well, generalisations are always dangerous, but the idea that society has learned nothing about how to make government since the founding fathers is, to me, ignoring change. Despite your obvious distain for Europe, some parts (always dangerous to group too many people together under one label, and "Europe" is a very broad label) are clearing moving forward in terms of social structure. And to think that the environment of the late 1700's is the same, or even close to the same, as today seems highly dangerous to me. America's governmental problem is not the inherent untrustworthyness of government (which does exist, but is, as you say, a part of the beast), it's the fact that there is a choice of "right", or "more right" in the political process. The constitution is a great idea, but to me it is not a set of limits imposed by the people on the government (although in effect it plays that role) - it establishes a framework for conversation between the people and the government. And like the people and the government it must change over time. Anyway, you seem to be arguing in a circle - on the one hand the constitution is there to protect you, on the other hand the current (and recent) governments are ignoring it. SO it's there, but it doesn't work ? In whcih case, it's not really there, right? Yes, lets not get started on the Civil War.
-
Alvaro, You were almost there, but fell at the last hurdle. Your analogy is quite good, but you just took a sudden turn at the last minute. You are right - no one is advocating the complete removeal of guns from all levels and forms of society. Also, proper training and resposibility should be part of gun ownership. I think you need to slightly modify your final statement. Instead of : "C++ is a language which in the hands of trained professionals can be used to efficiently write software. We shouldn't take it away; rather, we should train everyone to use it correctly and make them responsible for their usage. Thus, if a developer purposely misuses the language to cause havoc, he/she should be fired." It should read : "C++ is a language which in the hands of trained professionals can be used to efficiently write software. We should take it away from those who don't understand it, don;t need it, and have easy access to safe alternatives. We should train those who have need for it's power to use it correctly and make them responsible for their usage. Thus, if a trained and licensed developer purposely misuses the language to cause havoc, he/she should be fired." Really, I must admit I cannot understand how you can make the argument that (a) you admit it is dangerous in the wrong hands, and requires skill, training and a responsible attitude to be used correctly, and then state that (b) anyone should be allowed to have it, and it's up to the owner to decide whether they meet the criteria, and wheterh they will get training or not. What could be the problem with a society that says "No guns as a general rule. Prove yourself capable, demonstrate a need (shooting cans in the backyard doesn't count as 'need'), and accept responsibility for your actions, and you can have a gun". At the moment, America says - "you've got the money, we've got a gun for you". There seems to be quite a distance between these two statements.
Mike, I think you may have misunderstood me with my C++ analogy. I was referring to a case where there's a group of developers who need to write code and want to do it in C++. The manager would then say, "No, use Java 'cause it's safer". My argument is: No, they can use C++ as long as they get proper training and become responsible with how they use it. In other words, make them happy but make sure they know what they're doing before even starting with it. It wouldn't be an option, it would be a prerequisite. I think your last statement about "demonstrating a need" is where I don't agree. If I need to own a gun to boost my ego, or to shoot squirrels, or to hang high on the wall, or to feel safe, that's my problem. I shouldn't need to demonstrate a need that pleases you or any government. The government should be content with me being capable and responsible with the weapon. The need part is none of their business. Also, I'm not sure about this, but I've always heard that there's a 7-day waiting period before a person can buy a gun, during which a background check is run. So it's not quite as simple as "got money? have gun". Unfortunately for the gangsters and thugs it's different, they typically get guns through illegal sources. Regards, Alvaro
-
Well, generalisations are always dangerous, but the idea that society has learned nothing about how to make government since the founding fathers is, to me, ignoring change. Despite your obvious distain for Europe, some parts (always dangerous to group too many people together under one label, and "Europe" is a very broad label) are clearing moving forward in terms of social structure. And to think that the environment of the late 1700's is the same, or even close to the same, as today seems highly dangerous to me. America's governmental problem is not the inherent untrustworthyness of government (which does exist, but is, as you say, a part of the beast), it's the fact that there is a choice of "right", or "more right" in the political process. The constitution is a great idea, but to me it is not a set of limits imposed by the people on the government (although in effect it plays that role) - it establishes a framework for conversation between the people and the government. And like the people and the government it must change over time. Anyway, you seem to be arguing in a circle - on the one hand the constitution is there to protect you, on the other hand the current (and recent) governments are ignoring it. SO it's there, but it doesn't work ? In whcih case, it's not really there, right? Yes, lets not get started on the Civil War.
I've got to get off this, but I would just add that the constitution was designed from the very beginning to change over time via a process of amendment. The founding father's knew things would change, and planned for it. I have nothing against change, so long it is done according to the mechanisms defined within the document itself. I don't quite see how I'm arguing in circles when, as you accurately describe, I believe the constitution to be increasingly irrelevant as a means of addressing our dissatisfaction with our government. Hence, the gun argument.
-
Mike, I think you may have misunderstood me with my C++ analogy. I was referring to a case where there's a group of developers who need to write code and want to do it in C++. The manager would then say, "No, use Java 'cause it's safer". My argument is: No, they can use C++ as long as they get proper training and become responsible with how they use it. In other words, make them happy but make sure they know what they're doing before even starting with it. It wouldn't be an option, it would be a prerequisite. I think your last statement about "demonstrating a need" is where I don't agree. If I need to own a gun to boost my ego, or to shoot squirrels, or to hang high on the wall, or to feel safe, that's my problem. I shouldn't need to demonstrate a need that pleases you or any government. The government should be content with me being capable and responsible with the weapon. The need part is none of their business. Also, I'm not sure about this, but I've always heard that there's a 7-day waiting period before a person can buy a gun, during which a background check is run. So it's not quite as simple as "got money? have gun". Unfortunately for the gangsters and thugs it's different, they typically get guns through illegal sources. Regards, Alvaro
Well, you are right - we probably disagree on "need". To me, 'intent' is an important criteria in demonstrating 'responsibilty'. How can you judge a person's 'mindset' if they refuse to answer questions? Would you hire someone who answered any and all questions at an interview with "Look, I'm trained in C++ - why I want the job and what I'm going to do when I'm working in it is my business". And bottom line is that 'background checks', etc can only work for people who have already failed some type of test (been arrested, etc) - it means nothing for the vast majority of American gun owners, who easily pass such simple tests.
-
Christian, I could throw a rock into any trailer park in Oklahoma and hit someone intelligent enough to, with six weeks of training, program as well or better as you or anyone else on this site. So, please, enough of your analysis of other people's intellect based on their agreement with your political views.
Mate, I wouldn't be working in your environment then. :(( What can they do with 12 weeks training ? Point a gun at someone ? X|
-
Ray, I would rather see this planet go spiraling into the sun with all hands aboard than to see me and mine become part of anything even remotely resembling the European community.
That American mentality again, why do you feel a need to take the rest of us with you ? Just because of some paranoid 'threat' of becoming slightly more like the community from which you migrated. :confused:
-
I live in the San Francisco Bay area. So the costs are the same but San Diego is a lot prettier, the ocean water is warmer, there is a lot less traffic. I just wasn't sure about the job market there. I lived there for 3 years. I went to U.C. San Diego. After my son was born and I graduated I needed to be near my parents so I moved back up here (free babysitters). I miss it. Thanks for the information. :) Cathy
Wow. My brother was working for a startup out there, and he was paying $2100 for rent (somewhere in Pacifica) for a 1-bedroom studio. After being unable to find a job, he moved to Phoenix. San Diego isn't that bad yet (but you'll be lucky to find an apartment with 2 bedrooms for less than $1000). You should move out of California. :-)
-
Ah, welcome back John !!
I was just trying to show that I do have a serious, thoughtful, sensitive, and even articulate side. However, those times which require such a response are few and far between. It's simply easier to call people names and threaten them with violence (because it requires many fewer words than being nice). :)
-
Well, generalisations are always dangerous, but the idea that society has learned nothing about how to make government since the founding fathers is, to me, ignoring change. Despite your obvious distain for Europe, some parts (always dangerous to group too many people together under one label, and "Europe" is a very broad label) are clearing moving forward in terms of social structure. And to think that the environment of the late 1700's is the same, or even close to the same, as today seems highly dangerous to me. America's governmental problem is not the inherent untrustworthyness of government (which does exist, but is, as you say, a part of the beast), it's the fact that there is a choice of "right", or "more right" in the political process. The constitution is a great idea, but to me it is not a set of limits imposed by the people on the government (although in effect it plays that role) - it establishes a framework for conversation between the people and the government. And like the people and the government it must change over time. Anyway, you seem to be arguing in a circle - on the one hand the constitution is there to protect you, on the other hand the current (and recent) governments are ignoring it. SO it's there, but it doesn't work ? In whcih case, it's not really there, right? Yes, lets not get started on the Civil War.
> the idea that society has learned nothing about how to make government since the founding > fathers is, to me, ignoring change. Everyone has, I think, learned how to make a government, but otherwise decent well-meaning people get all weirded out when are thrust into a position of power and control. Things do tend to get out of hand, and they start bending the rules and getting greedy. It happens everywhere (not just here). > Despite your obvious distain for Europe, some parts (always dangerous to group too many > people together under one label, and "Europe" is a very broad label) are clearing moving > forward in terms of social structure I don't think he's showing "disdain for Europe". He was merely indicating that the majority (indeed ALL?) of imigrants to this country in the 1700's were from Europe. > [The Constitution] it must change over time That will probably never happen, because the people won't let it happen. I certainly don't think it would be a good idea to change it because all of a sudden, we'd have legal battles up the wazoo where someone thinks that the "new" Consititution could shed new light on their court case. There are changes that must be made, but none of the changes involves altering the Consititution. I now return you to "the real" John Simmons, Outlaw Programmer. Maybe we should simply take every other politician or government official and launch them into the sun. Maybe this would serve as enough of a warning for everyone else.
-
Mate, I wouldn't be working in your environment then. :(( What can they do with 12 weeks training ? Point a gun at someone ? X|
Actually, that's how I got my start. I was standing in my trailer park down by Gotebo one day scracthing my ass, drinking a beer and loading my Smith and Wesson when I was suddenly hit by a rock. Some guy asked me if I wanted to learn to program computers. I didn't know what a computer was, but, after I shot him, I got to thinking that might not be a bad idea. The rest is history...
-
Alvaro, You were almost there, but fell at the last hurdle. Your analogy is quite good, but you just took a sudden turn at the last minute. You are right - no one is advocating the complete removeal of guns from all levels and forms of society. Also, proper training and resposibility should be part of gun ownership. I think you need to slightly modify your final statement. Instead of : "C++ is a language which in the hands of trained professionals can be used to efficiently write software. We shouldn't take it away; rather, we should train everyone to use it correctly and make them responsible for their usage. Thus, if a developer purposely misuses the language to cause havoc, he/she should be fired." It should read : "C++ is a language which in the hands of trained professionals can be used to efficiently write software. We should take it away from those who don't understand it, don;t need it, and have easy access to safe alternatives. We should train those who have need for it's power to use it correctly and make them responsible for their usage. Thus, if a trained and licensed developer purposely misuses the language to cause havoc, he/she should be fired." Really, I must admit I cannot understand how you can make the argument that (a) you admit it is dangerous in the wrong hands, and requires skill, training and a responsible attitude to be used correctly, and then state that (b) anyone should be allowed to have it, and it's up to the owner to decide whether they meet the criteria, and wheterh they will get training or not. What could be the problem with a society that says "No guns as a general rule. Prove yourself capable, demonstrate a need (shooting cans in the backyard doesn't count as 'need'), and accept responsibility for your actions, and you can have a gun". At the moment, America says - "you've got the money, we've got a gun for you". There seems to be quite a distance between these two statements.
> It should read : > > "C++ is a language which in the hands of trained professionals > can be used to efficiently write software. We should take it > away from those who don't understand it, don't need it, and > have easy access to safe alternatives. We should train those > who have need for it's power to use it correctly and make them > responsible for their usage. Thus, if a trained and licensed > developer purposely misuses the language to cause havoc, he/she > should be fired." Actually, he/she should be fired into the sun or strapped to a rock and beaten to death.
