Sure, fine, have a touch-screen and pretty pictures and good usability in general, all of that is great. Then have the voting machine print a paper ballot, which is then cast normally. You can check the paper, or just use the paper yourself, if you don't trust the computer, or if it breaks, or has been hacked. And since almost all ballots will be printed cleanly, there will be little room for 2000-style "dimpled chad" and "interpreting the voter's intentions".
While I appreciate your greed and approve, if you're a software developer, or have some other highly skilled job as most/.ers do, it's not like you're at risk here. The jobs that have been scarce here because of outsourcing are in general low-skill jobs, from manufacturing to call centers, that are swiftly being replaced by robots anyhow.
While I agree with you about " a GOP w/o the religion", do you have the first clue what the Citizen's United case was actually about? It was about a group of people who pooled their money to show a film critical of Hillary. The ruling was that you do not lose your freedom of political speech simply because you form a partnership or corporation to manage the funds needed for that speech. There have since been many similar ruling that a closely held corporation is no different from a partnership in not restricting the protected rights of the owners.
Political speech in America has always involved money (and always involved anonymous speech). From the time when people in the British colonies were angry at King George to today, you can't spread your political message beyond the reach of your voice without money. Anonymous pamphleteering was a big deal early on, and you needed to buy a printing press to make that work. Buying a newspaper company in order to ensure your spin was heard was all the rage in the heyday of newspapers, much like starting your own cable news network was in the late 20th century.
Assuming you want someone other than the very rich to have a political voice, you can't restrict buying ads. Most of us can't afford to buy an entire newspaper company or cable network, even if we pool our resources, but we might be able to buy a political ad. And if that's not freedom of political speech, I don't know what is.
With factors like that going on all around your number, I'm not quite sure what value you can expect out of your salary stats
Software developers who don't work on web UI frontend stuff: infrastructure and systems programmers, kernel developers, and so on, were barely affected by all that. 2007-08 was rough for everyone, but even then it wasn't that bad for us backend devs.
Now, if your expertise was DB internals, hard cluster internals, or user-mode storage software, those fields have gradually faded over the past decade, but many of us just moved on to the new hotness: the backend for the cloud, and massively parallel systems that can run in the cloud (external or internal).
As you say there is a toxic culture in some places and if you stand up and fight besides these people you have lost, or if they fight for you cause. It's a common problem.
Nope, it doesn't work that way. You're just wrong, sorry, you lose.
See what happened there? You used a tactic that works mostly against people who avoid confrontation. Why is gamergate still a thing after all these weeks? Because SJW tactics don't work against people who seek confrontation online, and are used to achieving their goals by endlessly grinding, week after week, until they win.
You will not succeed in convincing all "gamers" that an ugly stereotype applies to them. Best give up now.
People in "dirt poor nations" are just as much "people" as here, and just as deserving of jobs. No moral wrong happens when a job moves from here to there - arguably the reverse given the safety net in each nation. But anyway, the point is that it's only short-term turbulence: China and India will eventually buy a lot more stuff than the US and EU, and will drive vastly more modern jobs worldwide as a result.
There is, in fact, a well-documented "conspiracy", though not a very secret one. There was also a well-coordinated effort in social media sites that gamers frequented to suppress all mention of gamergate (Reddit shadowbanned everyone talking about it, 4chan (of all places) banned everyone talking about it).
No, there's a difference between investigation and the concerted harassment by gamergate idiots.
Sure, but both "misogyny" and "journalistic ethics" are dodges here. Neither is really what gamergate is about: it's about a full-on culture war between the majority of the gaming press, and the actual gamers. The call for more gender sensitivity in game design, for example, seems harmless enough, what provokes people is simply outsiders to their culture demonizing that culture and insisting that it has to change - culture war.
Mostly, I think the real issue is just semantics - the culture of, say, CoD players (and other FPS games that attract mostly teen boys) can be toxic at times, but to criticize "gamers" as if they were all in that group really pisses off all of us addictively playing every other kind of games - from Candy Crush to Civ5.
Of course, but in all those cases, the singular is uncommon- the plural was really the borrowed word. Most people would say "one piece of data", "one agenda item", "one bacteria", or "one criteria" (only the last one bothers me, as "criteria" seems plural instead of uncountable to me).
That's just the "physics package", which is a very small part of a silo-launched missile. I got the impression that every maintenance hatch on the missile was protected by a large explosive charge, just as a security feature.
Who's this "they"? Facebook, Microsoft, Amazon, Google (who else has a billionaire tech CEO?) all pay top-tier wages. Sure, there are EAs and CAs out there too, but at least they threw CA's CEO in prison.
Have you noticed the thing about technology? It improves your standard of living. And no, "technology" doesn't mean iPhones, it means more efficient ways to produce everyday goods, cheaper in terms of labor, energy, and raw materials.
For 150 years now people have been complaining about how technology will make all the jobs go away and everyone will starve. Not so much, as it turns out. Making stuff cheaper always creates new job making more stuff, so the first world benefits, and the economies of India, China, and Brazil keeps growing (although China has it's own bubble to work through these days), and the middle class in each nation keeps expanding.
Again, it's not a zero-sum game. You want the course that makes the pie grow the fastest over time, rather than squabbling over who gets what slice. Exponential gains always trump linear gains over time.
You probably just take a several-billion-year nap.
While napping may indeed be popular in the retired community, travel is as well. And it seems likely the two passtimes could be combined, after all.
The energy will have to come from elsewhere, then.
This is even less practical than a stellar engine - you can hop between galaxies in only a few subjective centuries at 1g acceleration. Even with antimatter fuel the rocket equation becomes problematic after a while, but at least the physics makes sense. Try to send power to something moving past you near c, however, and you're sure to hear "I canna change the laws of physics, Captain!"
That's why it isn't useful. You can't use it for anything interesting to anyone but you
And if the only problem remaining to you in life is boredom?
So, what would a star moving at near-C look like to the rest of us?
Get it going fast enough and it would look somewhat like a gamma ray burst, to those directly ahead of it, and be invisible from most directions. But there's probably not enough energy in a star to get it up to that sort of speed, at least with any sort of "stellar engine" anyone has yet imagined.
Every job I've had for at least 10 years is in competition with people in low cost of living areas. Even so, I remain employed, and well paid. There's value in working local, and there's value in being good at what you do, so there's some premium to be had vs the cheapest place available.
Meanwhile, home prices in Bangalore are higher than rural America now - I would expect other factors of cost of living to follow.
You can certainly compete in a global market, if you're talented. If, however, you're doing some mindless job that anyone who can fog a mirror can do equally well, from any place in the world, then there's just no valid moral reason for the job to stay here. Further, it's only a matter of time before no one, will have that job. Technology means automation, and automation is why technology improves everyone's standard of living. The future is bleak for unskilled labor, worldwide, but that's not an outsourcing issue.
It is possible to 'grow the pie', but not by eliminating customers
That's exactly it. You grow the pie enormously, as China, India, and Brazil rise to "developed economy" standards of living (this has arguably already happened for S Korea). More than doubling the number of consumers is a massive gain for all of us, but most of all for all the people joining us at our standard of living!
The economy is not a zero-sum game. This is not a race to the bottom. As low cost-of-living places get more and more jobs, their standard of living rises and costs go up accordingly.
If your job doesn't require an in-person presence, then you're competing on a global market. Best get used to that fact - it's not going away, and isolationism spells certain death for modern economies.
And don't overlook the key fact that more people buy a given product than work to make it. If lower pay means lower costs, net advantage is had to the economy: that's been studied for e.g. Walmart selling lots of stuff made in China. The total amount saved by all Americans in buying these products is several times larger than the total lost wages. For business-to-business products, maybe it doesn't work that way, I don't know, but I wouldn't just assume it's bad for the economy.
It might not be much of a win for occupational safety and health; but a nuclear warhead does have a substantial chunk of conventional explosives built into it, which could be used to express displeasure at attempted tampering a bit more vehemently than bombs do today. Still not 100% foolproof; but raises the odds a bit.
Rest assured, this is an idea that has occurred to silo/missile designers. I used to work with a guy who was an officer for a nuke base in his prior career. He didn't go into detail, of course, but he mentioned a couple of times that silo nukes were a step beyond merely "tamper resistant", and that messing with one would not be a good life strategy - even normal maintenance made him nervous.
This language right here that you're reading? Not Latin. It's perfectly fine to use the English plural of English words, whatever language they're borrowed from (it's not like English has many words that weren't taken from another language). To do otherwise come across as pretentious pseudo-intellectualism, except perhaps in a formal context. Plus, most people end up embarrassing themselves with something like "octopi" when they try.
The whole point of the cloud is to remove yourself from such long-term commitments
Not so much. The whole point of the cloud is to remove yourself from long-term IT salary commitments, really, and to be able to just write a check for dependable IT quality (which apparently Azure isn't selling this year). Companies that see their IT staff as reliable and inexpensive wonder what all this "cloud" nonsense is about, while companies who just write ever-larger checks to EDS et al and shit still breaks all the time in the data center see the cloud as a wonderful escape.
Still, the complaint is not that he doesn't do anything with the laws that the Congress passes, the complaint is that Congress doesn't pass any laws that address important issues.
No, the problem is that the congress has passed clear laws on the issue of immigration, but Obama doesn't like them. So he makes his own law through creative (lack of) enforcement.
âoeThere are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply, through executive order, to ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as president.â - Candidate Obama
""the biggest problems that we're facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all. That is what I intend to reverse when I'm president of the United States of America." - Candidate Obama
It's a widely accepted corollary to Godwin's law that the person who compares his opponent to Hitler or the Nazis has thereby lost the argument, as he clearly has run out of rational objections and moved on to argumentum ad Nazium.
Slashdot Mirror
Paper ballots are pretty damn open-source.
Just because a voting machine is supposedly running open-source software doesn't preclude tampering - hardware or software.
Feels like I've said this 100 times now:
Electronic voting: bad.
Computer-assisted voting: good.
Sure, fine, have a touch-screen and pretty pictures and good usability in general, all of that is great. Then have the voting machine print a paper ballot, which is then cast normally. You can check the paper, or just use the paper yourself, if you don't trust the computer, or if it breaks, or has been hacked. And since almost all ballots will be printed cleanly, there will be little room for 2000-style "dimpled chad" and "interpreting the voter's intentions".
While I appreciate your greed and approve, if you're a software developer, or have some other highly skilled job as most /.ers do, it's not like you're at risk here. The jobs that have been scarce here because of outsourcing are in general low-skill jobs, from manufacturing to call centers, that are swiftly being replaced by robots anyhow.
Replacing your roof with solar panels will always be an overhead cost!
While I agree with you about " a GOP w/o the religion", do you have the first clue what the Citizen's United case was actually about? It was about a group of people who pooled their money to show a film critical of Hillary. The ruling was that you do not lose your freedom of political speech simply because you form a partnership or corporation to manage the funds needed for that speech. There have since been many similar ruling that a closely held corporation is no different from a partnership in not restricting the protected rights of the owners.
Political speech in America has always involved money (and always involved anonymous speech). From the time when people in the British colonies were angry at King George to today, you can't spread your political message beyond the reach of your voice without money. Anonymous pamphleteering was a big deal early on, and you needed to buy a printing press to make that work. Buying a newspaper company in order to ensure your spin was heard was all the rage in the heyday of newspapers, much like starting your own cable news network was in the late 20th century.
Assuming you want someone other than the very rich to have a political voice, you can't restrict buying ads. Most of us can't afford to buy an entire newspaper company or cable network, even if we pool our resources, but we might be able to buy a political ad. And if that's not freedom of political speech, I don't know what is.
With factors like that going on all around your number, I'm not quite sure what value you can expect out of your salary stats
Software developers who don't work on web UI frontend stuff: infrastructure and systems programmers, kernel developers, and so on, were barely affected by all that. 2007-08 was rough for everyone, but even then it wasn't that bad for us backend devs.
Now, if your expertise was DB internals, hard cluster internals, or user-mode storage software, those fields have gradually faded over the past decade, but many of us just moved on to the new hotness: the backend for the cloud, and massively parallel systems that can run in the cloud (external or internal).
As you say there is a toxic culture in some places and if you stand up and fight besides these people you have lost, or if they fight for you cause. It's a common problem.
Nope, it doesn't work that way. You're just wrong, sorry, you lose.
See what happened there? You used a tactic that works mostly against people who avoid confrontation. Why is gamergate still a thing after all these weeks? Because SJW tactics don't work against people who seek confrontation online, and are used to achieving their goals by endlessly grinding, week after week, until they win.
You will not succeed in convincing all "gamers" that an ugly stereotype applies to them. Best give up now.
People in "dirt poor nations" are just as much "people" as here, and just as deserving of jobs. No moral wrong happens when a job moves from here to there - arguably the reverse given the safety net in each nation. But anyway, the point is that it's only short-term turbulence: China and India will eventually buy a lot more stuff than the US and EU, and will drive vastly more modern jobs worldwide as a result.
There is, in fact, a well-documented "conspiracy", though not a very secret one. There was also a well-coordinated effort in social media sites that gamers frequented to suppress all mention of gamergate (Reddit shadowbanned everyone talking about it, 4chan (of all places) banned everyone talking about it).
No, there's a difference between investigation and the concerted harassment by gamergate idiots.
Sure, but both "misogyny" and "journalistic ethics" are dodges here. Neither is really what gamergate is about: it's about a full-on culture war between the majority of the gaming press, and the actual gamers. The call for more gender sensitivity in game design, for example, seems harmless enough, what provokes people is simply outsiders to their culture demonizing that culture and insisting that it has to change - culture war.
Mostly, I think the real issue is just semantics - the culture of, say, CoD players (and other FPS games that attract mostly teen boys) can be toxic at times, but to criticize "gamers" as if they were all in that group really pisses off all of us addictively playing every other kind of games - from Candy Crush to Civ5.
Of course, but in all those cases, the singular is uncommon- the plural was really the borrowed word. Most people would say "one piece of data", "one agenda item", "one bacteria", or "one criteria" (only the last one bothers me, as "criteria" seems plural instead of uncountable to me).
That's just the "physics package", which is a very small part of a silo-launched missile. I got the impression that every maintenance hatch on the missile was protected by a large explosive charge, just as a security feature.
and that's what they'd like - free labor.
Who's this "they"? Facebook, Microsoft, Amazon, Google (who else has a billionaire tech CEO?) all pay top-tier wages. Sure, there are EAs and CAs out there too, but at least they threw CA's CEO in prison.
I dunno, when I turned 40 I was making about double what I made at 30. Of course, I had put serious work into leadership skills in the meantime.
Have you noticed the thing about technology? It improves your standard of living. And no, "technology" doesn't mean iPhones, it means more efficient ways to produce everyday goods, cheaper in terms of labor, energy, and raw materials.
For 150 years now people have been complaining about how technology will make all the jobs go away and everyone will starve. Not so much, as it turns out. Making stuff cheaper always creates new job making more stuff, so the first world benefits, and the economies of India, China, and Brazil keeps growing (although China has it's own bubble to work through these days), and the middle class in each nation keeps expanding.
Again, it's not a zero-sum game. You want the course that makes the pie grow the fastest over time, rather than squabbling over who gets what slice. Exponential gains always trump linear gains over time.
You probably just take a several-billion-year nap.
While napping may indeed be popular in the retired community, travel is as well. And it seems likely the two passtimes could be combined, after all.
The energy will have to come from elsewhere, then.
This is even less practical than a stellar engine - you can hop between galaxies in only a few subjective centuries at 1g acceleration. Even with antimatter fuel the rocket equation becomes problematic after a while, but at least the physics makes sense. Try to send power to something moving past you near c, however, and you're sure to hear "I canna change the laws of physics, Captain!"
That's why it isn't useful. You can't use it for anything interesting to anyone but you
And if the only problem remaining to you in life is boredom?
So, what would a star moving at near-C look like to the rest of us?
Get it going fast enough and it would look somewhat like a gamma ray burst, to those directly ahead of it, and be invisible from most directions. But there's probably not enough energy in a star to get it up to that sort of speed, at least with any sort of "stellar engine" anyone has yet imagined.
Every job I've had for at least 10 years is in competition with people in low cost of living areas. Even so, I remain employed, and well paid. There's value in working local, and there's value in being good at what you do, so there's some premium to be had vs the cheapest place available.
Meanwhile, home prices in Bangalore are higher than rural America now - I would expect other factors of cost of living to follow.
You can certainly compete in a global market, if you're talented. If, however, you're doing some mindless job that anyone who can fog a mirror can do equally well, from any place in the world, then there's just no valid moral reason for the job to stay here. Further, it's only a matter of time before no one, will have that job. Technology means automation, and automation is why technology improves everyone's standard of living. The future is bleak for unskilled labor, worldwide, but that's not an outsourcing issue.
It is possible to 'grow the pie', but not by eliminating customers
That's exactly it. You grow the pie enormously, as China, India, and Brazil rise to "developed economy" standards of living (this has arguably already happened for S Korea). More than doubling the number of consumers is a massive gain for all of us, but most of all for all the people joining us at our standard of living!
The economy is not a zero-sum game. This is not a race to the bottom. As low cost-of-living places get more and more jobs, their standard of living rises and costs go up accordingly.
If your job doesn't require an in-person presence, then you're competing on a global market. Best get used to that fact - it's not going away, and isolationism spells certain death for modern economies.
And don't overlook the key fact that more people buy a given product than work to make it. If lower pay means lower costs, net advantage is had to the economy: that's been studied for e.g. Walmart selling lots of stuff made in China. The total amount saved by all Americans in buying these products is several times larger than the total lost wages. For business-to-business products, maybe it doesn't work that way, I don't know, but I wouldn't just assume it's bad for the economy.
It might not be much of a win for occupational safety and health; but a nuclear warhead does have a substantial chunk of conventional explosives built into it, which could be used to express displeasure at attempted tampering a bit more vehemently than bombs do today. Still not 100% foolproof; but raises the odds a bit.
Rest assured, this is an idea that has occurred to silo/missile designers. I used to work with a guy who was an officer for a nuke base in his prior career. He didn't go into detail, of course, but he mentioned a couple of times that silo nukes were a step beyond merely "tamper resistant", and that messing with one would not be a good life strategy - even normal maintenance made him nervous.
This language right here that you're reading? Not Latin. It's perfectly fine to use the English plural of English words, whatever language they're borrowed from (it's not like English has many words that weren't taken from another language). To do otherwise come across as pretentious pseudo-intellectualism, except perhaps in a formal context. Plus, most people end up embarrassing themselves with something like "octopi" when they try.
The whole point of the cloud is to remove yourself from such long-term commitments
Not so much. The whole point of the cloud is to remove yourself from long-term IT salary commitments, really, and to be able to just write a check for dependable IT quality (which apparently Azure isn't selling this year). Companies that see their IT staff as reliable and inexpensive wonder what all this "cloud" nonsense is about, while companies who just write ever-larger checks to EDS et al and shit still breaks all the time in the data center see the cloud as a wonderful escape.
Nice job. At first I thought the references at the end of the paper weren't used, but upon closer examination they were cited within the paper.
If I were in Academia, I'd be looking for the slightest excuse to cite this paper at every opportunity!
Still, the complaint is not that he doesn't do anything with the laws that the Congress passes, the complaint is that Congress doesn't pass any laws that address important issues.
No, the problem is that the congress has passed clear laws on the issue of immigration, but Obama doesn't like them. So he makes his own law through creative (lack of) enforcement.
âoeThere are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply, through executive order, to ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as president.â - Candidate Obama
""the biggest problems that we're facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all. That is what I intend to reverse when I'm president of the United States of America." - Candidate Obama
Why are you hitting yourself France? Why do you keep hitting yourself?
It's a widely accepted corollary to Godwin's law that the person who compares his opponent to Hitler or the Nazis has thereby lost the argument, as he clearly has run out of rational objections and moved on to argumentum ad Nazium.