Firstly it's not a fantasy unless you make it one. As someone brought up on a shoestring budget in one of the worst bits of London, I can assure you that in the real world, class is entirely irrelevant and ethics and morals are. There are people earning a quarter of what I do and three times what I do living either side of me and we're all on the same page, have the same ideals, hopes and goals.
There are no classes other than in the media.
Secondly, health is more important than purchasing branded and luxury goods. That is universally accepted as to shortcut ones health is to cause harm and the "golden rule" backs that up. To observe both signs of wealth and signs of poverty at the same time has certain obvious implications.
I try to live a life which is entirely ethical and I treat people with respect where earned. I will not be an apologist though and if I find something morally reprehensible I will exercise my right to mention it as you are exercising your right to criticise (which I accept).
Your comment by nature is to demote the "right wing" which means you are playing to typical partisan political ideologies.
1. I think things that are desirable are easy to offer citations for because there is a motivation to promote the desirable.
2. Conversely, things that are not desirably are not researched by people who do not desire the result.
So the citation is moot if either way it is biased. If you ever read any medical papers, they are a fine example. Look at the efficacy of Seroxat/Paroxetine for a fine example. GSK papers = utterly wonder drug. Independent researchers = suicide pills.
Which is where we stand on everything more complicated than basic scientific issues.
Applying that to my point, there is nothing citable as the result is probably not politically desirable.
Yes it is unsupported. I admit that. But it's clearly observable. I'm sure many people here observe it regularly.
You specify the problem the wrong way around.
The women got pregnant because the maternity grant was offered as is a cosy council house and a career of being pregnant. That's how it works here.
When you have three children like myself you spend a lot of time around parents and maternity units and the general consensus of the particular social stereotype is that a baby is a meal ticket and the £500 would go nicely on some Uggs and enough Silk Cut to get you through the first 9 months after it's born.
You can see the results of the maternity grant spending at ASDA which is basically the decked out in designer brand children being pushed around in their expensive buggy but the mother is buying £50 worth of cigarettes and her other three children are consigned to economy grade processed meat wrapped in breadcrumbs and some reconstituted potato product and some panda pops as their entire diet.
It's not down to poverty: just selfish idiocy, apathy and a complete lack of morals and ethics.
I know the differences, probably more than you realise.
I presented a hypothesis, which you can turn into a theory by sitting outside ASDA for a bit with a clipboard and a copy of SPSS. My suggestion was that you should try it.
Not everything needs citation in the form of a survey or scientific paper. I doubt the results of it would be honest as the people who they would be surveying have an interest in lying about the things they have purchased with it.
Some things are blatantly obvious if you peel your eyes occasionally and observe humanity.
This is because their JS implementation is a wrapper around WinRT rather than anything close to what anyone else is doing. It also isn't very JavaScripty. WinRT is a particularly odd creation.
They should do this in the UK. From observing the locals, the maternity grant (until yanked by the government) was used to buy designer gear for the mother, cigarettes and some expensive fashionable buggy for the baby (usually topped up by the baby's grandparents).
It took me 9 months and 45 calls to support to get a relatively simple regression in IE9/ClickOnce fixed and all we got was a fucking registry fix that we now have to ship to 2000 clients.
Basically they broke ClickOnce in IE9 for launching via scripts due to the new download prompting stuff.
Neither the framework team or IE team wanted to take responsibility leaving my poor support rep to reverse engineer both products.
To be honest I dragged a 1.5MLOC .Net 1.1 Web Forms and SQL 2000 application up to 4.0 and SQL 2008 R2 last year.
It wasn't that much of a problem. It took about 3 days and most of that was fixing deprecation warnings and porting the in house test framework to NUnit.
The real problem in the process was getting the build tooling and all the associated crap surrounding the solution up and running. This was also only because the muppets who wrote it originally put it together with sticky tape and string.
The Windows kernel is C++. From what I've seen (shared source), it's mainly C-style C++ though. I didn't see a single template or a class in my travels.
I applaud what they do in Finland.