the company has proven its lack of loyalty by outsourcing a lot of the work. I would take the new gig and the unknowns, rather than stick around for a company with a history of outsourcing. You could be the next outsourced victim.
So they had a deadline looming, and a very limited number of developers - what if the outsourcing was done with the intention of helping the developers by reducing their workload, so as to require less overtime? If anything, the outsourcing could be an indication of (possibly poorly-enacted) loyalty, by the company, to its developers.
The OP is senior out of 3 developers. If that's not can't-survive-without-you, how low do the numbers have to go? If OP was the only developer, would you still say that the company would be fine without them? Don't be too quick to blame on arrogance what can be adequately explained by guilt.
Only thing stopping me from using git or svn is that both solutions keep an additional local copy of all your data (git keeps the whole repository, svn just a copy of your working dir, but both effectively double the storage requirements for a typical photo album).
I could probably live with the additional storage requirements in most circumstances, except that one of the "backups" / "mirrors" is my mother's laptop, with a relatively small HDD.
The solution I'm currently in the process of setting up uses boar to sync several computers (some offsite) with a master repository on my media PC. This has the downside that boar has no networking capabilities, so offsite machines have to be set up to mount a network drive over SSH, which is a bit convoluted with windows. I then set up a scheduled task on the media PC to check the integrity of the repository, and clone it to a separate HDD if it's ok, without propagating deletions.
This solution works for me, though I wish it didn't require so much screwing around with loopback adaptors on the remote machines. Apart from that, though... it seems acceptable for now.
So AC postulates that climate scientists don't account for the accumulation of error? Well, that should be easy to disprove. And presumably, the AC will suddenly embrace climate science with open arms.
Surely we can build a device to target individual raindrops and evaporate them with a laser? They can already do it with mortars, afaik. Perhaps I should petition the government for funding - think of the boost to Scottish tourism if the weather here was predictable more than 5 minutes in advance!
The least that it is, it is a natural evolution of IRC
So it's IRC, but with worse chat, and added Creepers? Actually, there's probably a lot of things in life that can be made better simply by making them worse, and adding creepers.
I ended up hooked and now have the entire Joss Whedon collection, Angel, Buffy and Firefly with a couple of BtVS collectibles my late sister got me for bookends.
You should check out Dollhouse - pretty cool, once it gets going. Plus, you need it to merit the "entire" Joss Whedon collection claim:-)
I wouldn't argue that any climate model should be trusted. But my view (as a former computational physicist, meh) would be that we understand many mechanisms whereby our behaviour is likely to cause climate change. We've tried to model this behaviour many times, always imperfectly, but pretty much all the models indicate a statistically significant level of anthropogenic forcing. It's not like half the results indicate no change, and half do, or that half indicate warming and half indicate cooling.
Given that, arguing that we should continue with business-as-usual until the models can make extremly-accurate long-term predictions seems... foolhardy.
It's not, and if you're accusing an entire field of that... unless your "evidence" differs from that of most skeptics, IMO it's not convincing enough to support your allegations.
When the evidence doesn't fit the model, just come up with an excuse to dismiss the evidence. That's the grant-whoring scientific method at its finest.
And that's internet armchair climate critic at its finest.
Right so they take a computer model designed to approximate some aspects of reality, adjust it to account for another aspect of reality... and you say this makes it worse? You're seriously postulating that no part of a given climate model conforms in any way shape or form to actual reality? This may be getting a bit metaphysical, but is it even possible to model any system in a manner that conforms to no part of reality?
Given that most everyone would seem to agree that large volcanic eruptions have a temporary cooling effect... I'm not quite sure what you're trying to prove.
Having owned a Nexus S since December, I can safely say:
1) Curved display is a non-feature. Seriously, I don't notice it at all.
2) There's nowhere I can use the NFC chip yet. Apparently soon I'll be able to interact with billboards or some crap. Until its ubiquitous, NFC likely won't be much use.
The phones were on mute at the time of the study. And there was a switched-off phone strapped to the other side of their head. Supposedly this stopped the participants from knowing which was on, but the experiment lasted 50 minutes, so I'd imagine the "on" phone would be hotter if nothing else.
Slashdot Mirror
the company has proven its lack of loyalty by outsourcing a lot of the work. I would take the new gig and the unknowns, rather than stick around for a company with a history of outsourcing. You could be the next outsourced victim.
So they had a deadline looming, and a very limited number of developers - what if the outsourcing was done with the intention of helping the developers by reducing their workload, so as to require less overtime? If anything, the outsourcing could be an indication of (possibly poorly-enacted) loyalty, by the company, to its developers.
The OP is senior out of 3 developers. If that's not can't-survive-without-you, how low do the numbers have to go? If OP was the only developer, would you still say that the company would be fine without them? Don't be too quick to blame on arrogance what can be adequately explained by guilt.
Only thing stopping me from using git or svn is that both solutions keep an additional local copy of all your data (git keeps the whole repository, svn just a copy of your working dir, but both effectively double the storage requirements for a typical photo album).
I could probably live with the additional storage requirements in most circumstances, except that one of the "backups" / "mirrors" is my mother's laptop, with a relatively small HDD.
The solution I'm currently in the process of setting up uses boar to sync several computers (some offsite) with a master repository on my media PC. This has the downside that boar has no networking capabilities, so offsite machines have to be set up to mount a network drive over SSH, which is a bit convoluted with windows. I then set up a scheduled task on the media PC to check the integrity of the repository, and clone it to a separate HDD if it's ok, without propagating deletions.
This solution works for me, though I wish it didn't require so much screwing around with loopback adaptors on the remote machines. Apart from that, though ... it seems acceptable for now.
So AC postulates that climate scientists don't account for the accumulation of error? Well, that should be easy to disprove. And presumably, the AC will suddenly embrace climate science with open arms.
Mod parent up!
However, what amazes me is that with a patent like this, I am waiting for a patent to be approved for breathing.
Don't hold your breath! Sorry.
iSpex?
That wouldn't be very healthy for anyone flying over central Europe. Or their aircraft, for that matter!
Surely we can build a device to target individual raindrops and evaporate them with a laser? They can already do it with mortars, afaik. Perhaps I should petition the government for funding - think of the boost to Scottish tourism if the weather here was predictable more than 5 minutes in advance!
The least that it is, it is a natural evolution of IRC
So it's IRC, but with worse chat, and added Creepers? Actually, there's probably a lot of things in life that can be made better simply by making them worse, and adding creepers.
C'mon, what more do you want.
Optimised netcode!
"I wanted orange! It gave me lemon-lime..."
I ended up hooked and now have the entire Joss Whedon collection, Angel, Buffy and Firefly with a couple of BtVS collectibles my late sister got me for bookends.
You should check out Dollhouse - pretty cool, once it gets going. Plus, you need it to merit the "entire" Joss Whedon collection claim :-)
I wouldn't argue that any climate model should be trusted. But my view (as a former computational physicist, meh) would be that we understand many mechanisms whereby our behaviour is likely to cause climate change. We've tried to model this behaviour many times, always imperfectly, but pretty much all the models indicate a statistically significant level of anthropogenic forcing. It's not like half the results indicate no change, and half do, or that half indicate warming and half indicate cooling. Given that, arguing that we should continue with business-as-usual until the models can make extremly-accurate long-term predictions seems ... foolhardy.
It's not, and if you're accusing an entire field of that ... unless your "evidence" differs from that of most skeptics, IMO it's not convincing enough to support your allegations.
When the evidence doesn't fit the model, just come up with an excuse to dismiss the evidence. That's the grant-whoring scientific method at its finest.
And that's internet armchair climate critic at its finest.
Right so they take a computer model designed to approximate some aspects of reality, adjust it to account for another aspect of reality ... and you say this makes it worse? You're seriously postulating that no part of a given climate model conforms in any way shape or form to actual reality? This may be getting a bit metaphysical, but is it even possible to model any system in a manner that conforms to no part of reality?
Given that most everyone would seem to agree that large volcanic eruptions have a temporary cooling effect ... I'm not quite sure what you're trying to prove.
It may affect warming, but it doesn't fix ocean acidification
It would, however, always provide an interesting topic of conversation.
whatever their version of "south of the border" is
Gee, I wonder what could be the equivalent of "south of the border" in Northern Ireland. Hint: clue's in the name! :-)
Somehow, I think the folks on the ISS wouldn't like what the griefers would be able to do to them.
Yeah and there's no oil in the Niger delta?
Having owned a Nexus S since December, I can safely say:
1) Curved display is a non-feature. Seriously, I don't notice it at all.
2) There's nowhere I can use the NFC chip yet. Apparently soon I'll be able to interact with billboards or some crap. Until its ubiquitous, NFC likely won't be much use.
Still a great phone though.
The phone was muted; they weren't listening to it
The phones were on mute at the time of the study. And there was a switched-off phone strapped to the other side of their head. Supposedly this stopped the participants from knowing which was on, but the experiment lasted 50 minutes, so I'd imagine the "on" phone would be hotter if nothing else.