4 ms·

So, you would rather cut a feature from your application than multiple lines of code that simply allocates memory, waits a long time, and then frees it for no r

So, you would rather cut a feature from your application than multiple lines of code that simply allocates memory, waits a long time, and then frees it for no reason? In other words, at least the boat is actually potentially useful. The empty building is completely wasteful.

Loughla 13y ago
Um. A building is also potentially useful?
- cobrausn 13y ago
  An empty building, used by nobody but costing the government money, is not useful to anyone except the people receiving the money. So I guess in that respect, if the money is going into the local economy, it's a really poor form of stimulus.
  - Loughla 13y ago
    A ship designed for war, not being used for war, but costing the government money, is not useful to anyone except the people receiving the money. So, I guess in that respect, if the money is going into something other than the local economy, it's really a poor form of stimulus. So, it's a values difference, then.
    - cobrausn 13y ago
      Most of the reason money is spent on defense is deterrent. Some people gain more value out of that than others. Hopefully it never gets used, although if you need it eventually, it's much harder to build a warship and train a crew to use it than it is to find an empty building somewhere (or just build it). Yeah, difference of values is fairly spot on. I don't know anybody who values an empty building, though. Or didn't, until now?
      - Loughla 13y ago
        It's not that I value the empty building, I value the potential for an empty building a heck of a lot more than I value the potential for large weapons. I understand where you're argument is - at least we get some use out of the big boat. I just don't like it, and would prefer to see the buildings be paid for overtop of weapons. Man, that makes me sound like a giant hippy now that I've written it out.
        cobrausn 13y ago
        A bit, but I was just quoting Jim Morrison to a friend, so there's that. :-D At the risk of pushing this thread well past the point of usefulness and too far into the abstract, you know the building could be used to quarter troops, store weapons, etc, so long as it is owned by the government, even not in time of war? Personally, I value the government owning large weapons more than I value them owning millions of small weapons. The large weapons are more likely to be used under the correct circumstances. I think that's part of why we overuse (IMHO) drones - it made it cheap to wage asymmetric warfare.
        Loughla 13y ago
        I'm aware that the could use it for storing troops and weapons, etc. But, these buildings are not expressly designed for warfare, and therefore could have other uses. In fact, it seems that we have this issue because there are steps in place to make sure these buildings get used for something else. It's a matter of design versus function. The buildings could be re-purposed for war, but they weren't expressly designed for it.
runako 13y ago
Whew, missing the point. s/Littoral Combat Ship/any of the 1000s of wasteful or inefficient programs larger than $1.7B annually/ and reread my comment. My point is that available effort to resolve any problem is roughly finite. Fixing the regulations to solve this problem would involve Congressional time and attention, and that applying that attention to a larger problem could lead to much larger gains. I'm not saying this is good waste, I'm saying that all things being equal it makes sense to rank problems by potential impact and then start near the top.

Loughla 13y ago

Um. A building is also potentially useful?

cobrausn 13y ago
An empty building, used by nobody but costing the government money, is not useful to anyone except the people receiving the money. So I guess in that respect, if the money is going into the local economy, it's a really poor form of stimulus.
- Loughla 13y ago
  A ship designed for war, not being used for war, but costing the government money, is not useful to anyone except the people receiving the money. So, I guess in that respect, if the money is going into something other than the local economy, it's really a poor form of stimulus. So, it's a values difference, then.
  - cobrausn 13y ago
    Most of the reason money is spent on defense is deterrent. Some people gain more value out of that than others. Hopefully it never gets used, although if you need it eventually, it's much harder to build a warship and train a crew to use it than it is to find an empty building somewhere (or just build it). Yeah, difference of values is fairly spot on. I don't know anybody who values an empty building, though. Or didn't, until now?
    - Loughla 13y ago
      It's not that I value the empty building, I value the potential for an empty building a heck of a lot more than I value the potential for large weapons. I understand where you're argument is - at least we get some use out of the big boat. I just don't like it, and would prefer to see the buildings be paid for overtop of weapons. Man, that makes me sound like a giant hippy now that I've written it out.
      - cobrausn 13y ago
        A bit, but I was just quoting Jim Morrison to a friend, so there's that. :-D At the risk of pushing this thread well past the point of usefulness and too far into the abstract, you know the building could be used to quarter troops, store weapons, etc, so long as it is owned by the government, even not in time of war? Personally, I value the government owning large weapons more than I value them owning millions of small weapons. The large weapons are more likely to be used under the correct circumstances. I think that's part of why we overuse (IMHO) drones - it made it cheap to wage asymmetric warfare.
        Loughla 13y ago
        I'm aware that the could use it for storing troops and weapons, etc. But, these buildings are not expressly designed for warfare, and therefore could have other uses. In fact, it seems that we have this issue because there are steps in place to make sure these buildings get used for something else. It's a matter of design versus function. The buildings could be re-purposed for war, but they weren't expressly designed for it.

runako 13y ago

Whew, missing the point. s/Littoral Combat Ship/any of the 1000s of wasteful or inefficient programs larger than $1.7B annually/ and reread my comment. My point is that available effort to resolve any problem is roughly finite. Fixing the regulations to solve this problem would involve Congressional time and attention, and that applying that attention to a larger problem could lead to much larger gains. I'm not saying this is good waste, I'm saying that all things being equal it makes sense to rank problems by potential impact and then start near the top.