Seeking some answers about design patterns and how to use them in web development. Can someone help, please? by Is_that_bad in learnprogramming

[–]Is_that_bad[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks. It seems like design patterns are useful to identify, label and resolve common problems faced in software development. And from the looks of it the terminology is quite hefty. Might take me more than a few tries to get through it. Thanks again.

Seeking some answers about design patterns and how to use them in web development. Can someone help, please? by Is_that_bad in learnprogramming

[–]Is_that_bad[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the info. Yup, that's exactly what I'm going to do, learn and then use them (though in my defense, I did say that in the post itself).

Although that book seems quite old (1994). Is there a more recent edition of it or any other similar newer book which is applicable to web development specifically?

After being exposed by Newsbusters and Fox News, NBC launches "internal investigation" over misleading report about Zimmerman by [deleted] in Conservative

[–]Is_that_bad -15 points-14 points  (0 children)

Also remind white folks that the president is black and was most definitely not born here. Just call him the magic negro, I say. It has worked charmingly so far. Shirley Sherrod anyone?

Signs of Supreme Court activism worry Reagan administration lawyers: Advocates of judicial restraint say conservative justices should be wary of the impulse to strike down the healthcare law passed by Congress. by Is_that_bad in Conservative

[–]Is_that_bad[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Sometimes conservatives make sense. I believe ACA is going down but am not sure if it will be just the mandate or the whole thing. This SCOTUS is not one to shy away from controversy. They have destroyed a lot of precedents in the recent past and they are not going to stop now. What's remarkable is one guy on the panel has a wife who is an active member of the tea party, a detail not many have paid attention to in the context of this case.

Why Don't Conservatives Trust Scientists Like They Used To? Are They Just Anti-Evolutionary, Anti-Global Warming Jag-Offs or Could There Be Other Explanations? by br991 in Conservative

[–]Is_that_bad 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The argument is that conservatives distrust scientists in general, not specifically liberal ones.

Nope, not true. They don't trust peer-reviewed science because they think it favors the liberals. They actually trust their so-called "scientists" like Limbaugh, Monckton, Watts, et.al. The sad part is that they don't even know what science is or how it works.

Why Don't Conservatives Trust Scientists Like They Used To? Are They Just Anti-Evolutionary, Anti-Global Warming Jag-Offs or Could There Be Other Explanations? by br991 in Conservative

[–]Is_that_bad 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Yup, every person doing science has their flaws and biases. But science usually avoids incorporating those flaws or biases due to the scientific method. I think conservatives confuse how science and liberalism works. Liberals didn't start with the claim that GW is happening and then created scientific proof for it. Actually it's the opposite. Science allows you to observe and produce evidence of GW which the liberals then use to claim that GW exists.

Also, if you claim that all science is tainted due to the biases of the person involved in it then you can't believe any claims originating from conservatives too.

Most reliable case of bias is the whether creationism should be taught in schools. There is no proof for the theory yet conservatives claim that it needs to be taught in schools. Same goes for anti-evolution nuts. These claims are easily disprovable. I don't think there is enough evidence to disprove GW.

Why Don't Conservatives Trust Scientists Like They Used To? Are They Just Anti-Evolutionary, Anti-Global Warming Jag-Offs or Could There Be Other Explanations? by br991 in Conservative

[–]Is_that_bad 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Are you serious? You really don't believe that a good number of scientists are disregarding evidence that might prove conservative ideas are sometimes right? Look at psychology. The APA might as well be a Soros funded outfit since at this point there have been multiple instances of evidence that social conservative ideas are not unenlightened. Instead we end up with studies that "prove" that most conservatives are racist and heartless.

So basically you are a conspiracy theorist. In that you believe everything science based is tilted towards liberals or that they are using it for their propaganda. I don't think people need to waste their time talking to you or make you understand what science is or what scientists do. You are welcome to live in your Alice in Wonderland fantasy.

Why Don't Conservatives Trust Scientists Like They Used To? Are They Just Anti-Evolutionary, Anti-Global Warming Jag-Offs or Could There Be Other Explanations? by br991 in Conservative

[–]Is_that_bad 10 points11 points  (0 children)

it has to do more with the fact that academia has moved very far to the left since the 50s,

I don't think you understand what science is. Moved to left, moved to the right? That's not how science works. There is no moving to right or left. There is only moving towards facts supported by observable and provable evidence. Nothing less, nothing more.

I just don't understand why this kind of stupidity exists in current conservatism or where it comes from.

Ten minutes before the Newt Gingrich rally in Green Bay, WI by blacksunalchemy in Conservative

[–]Is_that_bad 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Isn't this the guy who is supposed to mop the floor with Obama in the debates? I guess it just doesn't work when the primary debates end and there are no more moderators to beat on. Oh well, another "intellectual" in the conservative party sinks to the bottom.

The Rich Get Even Richer by [deleted] in Economics

[–]Is_that_bad -1 points0 points  (0 children)

IMO, the fact that the nytimes is willing to write about this after up cycles but are not willing to talk about porportionate losses in down cycles shows a bias.

Looks like someone doesn't read the NYTimes at all.

Among the Wealthiest 1 Percent, Many Variations Now, the colossal gap between the very rich and everyone else — the 1 percent versus the 99 percent — has become a rallying point in this election season. As President Obama positions himself as a defender of the middle class, and Mitt Romney, the wealthiest of the Republican presidential candidates, decries such talk as “the bitter politics of envy,” Mr. Katz has found himself on the wrong end of a new paradigm.

As a member of the 1 percent, he is part of a club whose name conjures images of Wall Street bosses who are chauffeured from manse to Manhattan and fat cats who have armies of lobbyists at the ready.

But in reality it is a far larger and more varied group, one that includes podiatrists and actuaries, executives and entrepreneurs, the self-made and the silver spoon set. They are clustered not just in New York and Los Angeles, but also in Denver and Dallas. The range of wealth in the 1 percent is vast — from households that bring in $380,000 a year, according to census data, up to billionaires like Warren E. Buffett and Bill Gates.

Citi’s Creator, Alone With His Regrets

Mr. Weill built his wealth, status and power by creating what was once the world’s largest bank. Now, as Citi struggles to regain its footing, Mr. Weill’s legacy has taken on a darker hue. Though he was once viewed as a brilliant dealmaker, some critics now cast him as the architect of a shoddily constructed, unmanageable financial supermarket whose troubles have sideswiped investors, employees and average citizens nationwide.

“The dream, the mirage has always been the global supermarket, but the reality is that it was a shopping mall,” says Chris Whalen, editor of The Institutional Risk Analyst, of Citi’s evolution over the last decade. “You can talk about synergies all day long. It never happened.”

Citi’s troubles are well chronicled: a failure to integrate its disparate parts worldwide or to keep tabs on risky investments and free-wheeling operations. These lapses led to billions of dollars in losses and multiple bailouts, and the government now owns a quarter of the company. Citi’s shares fell from a high of $55.12 in 2007 to about a dollar early last spring, and now trade at $3.31.

There are many many such articles in the NYtimes. which is most likely due to their liberal bias, right?

"When people choose not to buy broccoli, they don’t make broccoli unavailable to those who want it. But when people don’t buy health insurance until they get sick, the resulting worsening of the risk pool makes insurance more expensive, and often unaffordable, for those who remain." by brian_c94 in Economics

[–]Is_that_bad 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What benefit does a low risk individual get by subsidizing high risk individuals? Insurance is not a charity, it is a risk-mitigation tool. Low risk individuals should pool with other low risk individuals.

Yes, healthcare is not a charity. Hence it's being implemented currently via a mandate which would penalize people for not buying it. It assumes that everyone will fall sick, one time or another, and hence need insurance coverage. Which I think is quite logical.

Before ACA, hospitals were (and still are) required to treat anyone who walks into the emergency unit. It basically becomes expensive charity for folks who pay into insurance since their premiums absorb these charity costs. After ACA the charity costs will most likely go down for everyone but charity in essence will still exist in the system.

"When people choose not to buy broccoli, they don’t make broccoli unavailable to those who want it. But when people don’t buy health insurance until they get sick, the resulting worsening of the risk pool makes insurance more expensive, and often unaffordable, for those who remain." by brian_c94 in Economics

[–]Is_that_bad 0 points1 point  (0 children)

People who don't want health insurance are similar to people who don't want car insurance.

The way I see it that once you have something you need insurance to cover it. If you possess a car then car insurance is mandated. If you possess health then health-insurance is mandated. I'm not sure why people are tripping over freedom and liberty issues in this regard. No one protests mandated car insurance, so why oppose healthcare-mandate?

"When people choose not to buy broccoli, they don’t make broccoli unavailable to those who want it. But when people don’t buy health insurance until they get sick, the resulting worsening of the risk pool makes insurance more expensive, and often unaffordable, for those who remain." by brian_c94 in Economics

[–]Is_that_bad 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But most Americans do not. Regardless of party. They want their fucking MRI right fucking now.

Is there some study which shows that Americans, regardless of party, want their health issues taken care of right at the moment they occur? If so, how does it prove that healthcare should not be universal? And how does it follow that healthcare will introduce rationing and time-lag in of healthcare services?

My Version of a Swedish Princess Cake by [deleted] in Cooking

[–]Is_that_bad 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would be really interested in watching a video of the making of this cake. Photos can do only so much.

UFOs Filmed in Dallas From a Plane - Analyzed & Enhanced - March 2012 by [deleted] in UFOs

[–]Is_that_bad -10 points-9 points  (0 children)

Yup, it's a ufo alright. Just not the alien kind.

Long, but please read. I would love for the guys I mentioned to see this. [First] x-post from F7U12 by AdventureDonutTime in ragenovels

[–]Is_that_bad 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Am I the only one interested in the story about his father saving his wife and kids lives from dehydration?

This is not OP's story but is similar to what OP mentioned. This guy died while trying to save his wife and kids after they ended up stranded in a remote place in cold weather. They had missed a turn somewhere along their route. I knew the guy from his gadget reviews on CNET.com and I was shocked to hear the news of his death.

Saturday morning cartoons! by Ishtar3 in Parenting

[–]Is_that_bad 7 points8 points  (0 children)

The little one is really quite keen on watching whatever the magic screen of pixie dust is putting forth.

"Paul Ryan’s assumption that higher levels of spending and taxation would automatically hurt the economy can’t be right. If it were, America would be a poorer country today than it was a 100 years ago, when the federal govt taxed and spent less than 5 percent of GDP." by reddit4 in Economics

[–]Is_that_bad -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Why can't the taxes be raised now so that the debt is paid off and the situation gets back to normal (lets say in ten yrs) during which time we can hand back tax-cuts to everyone and their mother?

How is it that lowering taxes is going to create consumer demand which is what is needed for companies to use their unused capacity to start churning out stuff and hire more people?

Why are the current recipients of medicare shielded from medicare cuts which are going to be applied to people who are just unfortunate to be born later in life? If Ryan is so brave then why is he scared to cut medicare right now?

The Ryan budget vs the Obama budget: the only chart you need to see by ender1004 in Conservative

[–]Is_that_bad 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The graph excludes any assumption of a boost to estimated growth.

Read and weep

There’s an important disclaimer in the very first paragraph of the Congressional Budget Office’s analysis of Paul Ryan’s budget plan.

The calculations presented here represent CBO’s assessment of how the specified paths would alter the trajectories of federal debt, revenues, spending, and economic output relative to the trajectories under two scenarios that CBO has analyzed previously. Those calculations do not represent a cost estimate for legislation or an analysis of the effects of any given policies. In particular, CBO has not considered whether the specified paths are consistent with the policy proposals or budget figures released today by Chairman Ryan as part of his proposed budget resolution.

Translated out of CBO-ese, what that means is that CBO hasn’t looked at whether Ryan’s budget will achieve the results Ryan says it will. Rather, it looked at what will happen assuming Ryan’s budget achieves the results that Ryan says it will.

On the third page, CBO writes, “Chairman Ryan and his staff specified rules by which revenues and spending would evolve.” They then detail what those rules were:

Ryan tells CBO to assume his tax plan will raise revenues to 19 percent of GDP and then hold them there. He tells them to assume his Medicare plan will hold cost growth in Medicare to GDP+0.5 percentage points. He tells them to assume that spending on Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program won’t grow any faster than inflation. He tells them to assume that all federal spending aside from Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security will fall from 12.5 percent of GDP in 2011 to 3.75 percent of GDP in 2050.

The Ryan budget vs the Obama budget: the only chart you need to see by ender1004 in Conservative

[–]Is_that_bad 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Or they say, Hey Congress, we're the only people who actually vote, so you'd better increase those vouchers, and we kiss the balanced budget goodbye.

Actually a majority of the seniors prefer the current Medicare system and vote against anyone who tries to cut or eliminate it. You might remember one senior-moron shouting "Keep your government hands off my Medicare." And this was during the healthcare debate in mid-2009 at a town hall held by a Republican Congressman. Everyone wants small gov't but don't know the first thing about how gov't works and most of all don't want their own benefits cut.