4 ms·

Rys is cool though. He gives out of office hours support for people learning 3d graphics. Check out his recent talk at the London Graphics Hackerspace: http://

Rys is cool though. He gives out of office hours support for people learning 3d graphics. Check out his recent talk at the London Graphics Hackerspace: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWzcEKHbBv4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWzcEKHbBv4

bpatrianakos 14y ago
That's no excuse. He may be a great guy but the OP's point stil stands. In general we're all great people until we're not. I'm a nice guy but I've been known to be a total asshole like anybody else. Cool guys act like dicks sometimes and a record of being a good guy doesn't excuse one for doing something uncool. Bill Clinton left us with a surplus. He also cheated on his wife. Still a good president but cheating is a dick move. See what I'm saying (please don't read into it and focus on the wrong thing now)?
- phaus 14y ago
  There are lots of things about Bill Clinton that I liked and just a few things about him that I didn't, but seriously, I don't think even the most incompetent person in the world could have left us without a surplus in the era that the internet went mainstream. I do agree with the point you were making.
  - officemonkey 14y ago
    The internet bubble didn't create the surplus, the "peace dividend" did. After the former Soviet republics became our BFFs, we promptly eviscerated our Cold War military. Combine that with some good growth in the economy (which obviously includes the tech sector) and some welfare reform that Clinton and Gingrich worked on together, and you got a nice surplus. Throw in Bush-era tax cuts and two wars, and you can say bye-bye to that.
    - phaus 14y ago
      How much did our defense spending decrease? I know that we must have saved a ton of money when Clinton cut the Army nearly in half and when we decommissioned so many of our battleships. I've heard it said that we still spend more on defense than the next 10 countries combined, but I'm not sure what the numbers looked like before the cutbacks. Edit: I did a little research and I was astonished to find out that welfare programs cost hundreds of billions of dollars annually. I didn't think that something like welfare would make up a significant percentage of the budget. It's over 10% of the federal budget if you include all of the programs that fall under "welfare." Looking at the statistics, the amount of money spent on welfare didn't significantly increase or decrease during or after Bill Clinton was in office (until our current financial crisis.) I know that he was trying to find smarter ways to spend the money, such as by getting people back to work with education and employment assistance, but how could the reform have added to the surplus if the amount of spending wasn't reduced? After looking at this site a bit longer, it looks like every category of spending increased each year he was in office. Even though spending increased, there were some areas where he slowed down the rate of increase, which is admirable. But if we increased spending in every area before, during and after his presidency, yet we produced a surplus during his presidency, doesn't that mean the surplus was created by the thriving economy, which was in turn thriving because of the internet boom? I'm not asking to be argumentative, I just don't understand how we can say that our reduced need for defense spending combined with welfare reform caused a surplus when we didn't reduce our spending in either category from 1993-2001. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/breakdown_1994USbt_13bs5n http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/breakdown_1994USbt_13bs5... Edit2: Since I asked a couple of questions. Wouldn't it be more productive to answer them instead of downvoting me? I wouldn't have asked them if I didn't genuinely want someone to explain things to me from their perspective. Why let someone continue to be wrong when given the opportunity to correct it?
      - seanmcdirmid 14y ago
        Inflation + population growth will result in increases unless you make a conscious decision to cut. So if you leave something alone in the budget, you'd expect it to increase naturally over time. Even if there was no internet boom, and the budget continued to rise, tax receipts would still go up b/c the economy must grow to accommodate all those kids entering the workforce each year. If you hold the line on spending increases, not eliminate the increases but put them below the rate of growth, you'll have a surplus.
  - bpatrianakos 14y ago
    I specifically said not to focus on the wrong thing and yours is one of a string of comments that does exactly that. But I am glad you get and agree with my point.
georgemcbay 14y ago
I'll take your word for it that he's a cool guy. And I don't even fault him for working for a company I have a not-so-great opinion of -- it is quite possibly a great place to work for employees and might be the best option to pursue his interests around where he lives. But none of that changes the fact that knowing where he works brings to mind the old saying about people living in glass houses.

bpatrianakos 14y ago

That's no excuse. He may be a great guy but the OP's point stil stands. In general we're all great people until we're not. I'm a nice guy but I've been known to be a total asshole like anybody else. Cool guys act like dicks sometimes and a record of being a good guy doesn't excuse one for doing something uncool. Bill Clinton left us with a surplus. He also cheated on his wife. Still a good president but cheating is a dick move. See what I'm saying (please don't read into it and focus on the wrong thing now)?

phaus 14y ago
There are lots of things about Bill Clinton that I liked and just a few things about him that I didn't, but seriously, I don't think even the most incompetent person in the world could have left us without a surplus in the era that the internet went mainstream. I do agree with the point you were making.
- officemonkey 14y ago
  The internet bubble didn't create the surplus, the "peace dividend" did. After the former Soviet republics became our BFFs, we promptly eviscerated our Cold War military. Combine that with some good growth in the economy (which obviously includes the tech sector) and some welfare reform that Clinton and Gingrich worked on together, and you got a nice surplus. Throw in Bush-era tax cuts and two wars, and you can say bye-bye to that.
  - phaus 14y ago
    How much did our defense spending decrease? I know that we must have saved a ton of money when Clinton cut the Army nearly in half and when we decommissioned so many of our battleships. I've heard it said that we still spend more on defense than the next 10 countries combined, but I'm not sure what the numbers looked like before the cutbacks. Edit: I did a little research and I was astonished to find out that welfare programs cost hundreds of billions of dollars annually. I didn't think that something like welfare would make up a significant percentage of the budget. It's over 10% of the federal budget if you include all of the programs that fall under "welfare." Looking at the statistics, the amount of money spent on welfare didn't significantly increase or decrease during or after Bill Clinton was in office (until our current financial crisis.) I know that he was trying to find smarter ways to spend the money, such as by getting people back to work with education and employment assistance, but how could the reform have added to the surplus if the amount of spending wasn't reduced? After looking at this site a bit longer, it looks like every category of spending increased each year he was in office. Even though spending increased, there were some areas where he slowed down the rate of increase, which is admirable. But if we increased spending in every area before, during and after his presidency, yet we produced a surplus during his presidency, doesn't that mean the surplus was created by the thriving economy, which was in turn thriving because of the internet boom? I'm not asking to be argumentative, I just don't understand how we can say that our reduced need for defense spending combined with welfare reform caused a surplus when we didn't reduce our spending in either category from 1993-2001. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/breakdown_1994USbt_13bs5n http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/breakdown_1994USbt_13bs5... Edit2: Since I asked a couple of questions. Wouldn't it be more productive to answer them instead of downvoting me? I wouldn't have asked them if I didn't genuinely want someone to explain things to me from their perspective. Why let someone continue to be wrong when given the opportunity to correct it?
    - seanmcdirmid 14y ago
      Inflation + population growth will result in increases unless you make a conscious decision to cut. So if you leave something alone in the budget, you'd expect it to increase naturally over time. Even if there was no internet boom, and the budget continued to rise, tax receipts would still go up b/c the economy must grow to accommodate all those kids entering the workforce each year. If you hold the line on spending increases, not eliminate the increases but put them below the rate of growth, you'll have a surplus.
- bpatrianakos 14y ago
  I specifically said not to focus on the wrong thing and yours is one of a string of comments that does exactly that. But I am glad you get and agree with my point.

georgemcbay 14y ago

I'll take your word for it that he's a cool guy. And I don't even fault him for working for a company I have a not-so-great opinion of -- it is quite possibly a great place to work for employees and might be the best option to pursue his interests around where he lives. But none of that changes the fact that knowing where he works brings to mind the old saying about people living in glass houses.