You might think with that big pile of cash that bailed out executive bonuses, that homeowners might have gotten a break or at least a bit of mercy, but that certainly isn't the case.
They did, actually, through various new mortgage relief programs.
They just keep on telling themselves they have "the best healthcare system in the world", which (IMHO) is only true for the minority of rich americans that don't really need the insurance companies anyway...
The UK has some of the worst survival rates for cancer in the world. In the US the breast cancer survival rate is 83.9%, but in the UK it's 69.7%. From a statistical standpoint this is a huge difference, and represents thousands of people who died in the UK, but would have lived had they been in the US.
But when I look back at the math that was done 100 years ago, I find very little of it unused.
Oh come on, you are seriously thinking that if you picked up a 100 year old math journal, most of the articles would have introduced things that are still being used?
(a) Sure, the drudge work in architecture doesn't require out of the box thinking, but that's true of most creative fields, even computer science. The average coder does not spend all day thinking up new ways to do things.
Very little creativity is required, but a lot of pattern matching, like detective's work. But rare a doctor discovers a new disease; some come up with a new treatment.
When you get something as complicated as the human body, I think it does go beyond pattern matching. Dentists are a little different because there is very little we do not know about the teeth right now.
Finally, I don't know much about law firsthand, but still I am pretty sure that rarely a lawyer invents a completely new defense. In most cases old, well known defenses and tactics work just fine. Law is very conservative, and I believe that most cases are solved and tried by methods that were known hundreds of years ago, as far back as the Roman Empire. Their "secret language" is Latin, not Klingon.
By that rationale coding is the same; the basic principles have been the same for decades. Attacking a legal problem properly requires a lot of imagination, actually, since the facts of any particular case are rarely clean enough to fit easily into a legal solution.
No, IMO. Most professions involve endless repeats from the same, small box of tricks. Only a few trades could be comparable - arts, for example (but not all arts!), then some small percentage of engineering jobs... I can't think of much else. Majority of workers are employed to simply do their daily job (like driving a bus,) not to invent things.
Huh? You really think so? Medicine, law, and architecture spring to mind as requiring some degree of out of the box thinking.
Folks, can we pretty please think of another name for this stuff? 50 years worth of misinformation is, I fear, holding us back. People here the word "nuclear" and immediately start shitting their pants with fear.
Folks, can you all stop reacting to stories regarding nuclear power on slashdot by falling over at your computers, foaming at the mouth, and shrieking about how the general public are all so stupid that they oppose any use of nuclear power because they're luddites and they're not as scientifically informed as all of us blah blah blah.
There are 104 nuclear reactors in this country. They provide almost 20% of the country's electricity consumption. They are not thronged by those hordes of sign-waving hippies that most of you seem to think are keeping nuclear power down. There have not been any new nuclear plants built in this country in a long time not because of protesters, but because they are insanely and hideously expensive to build. They are for the most part not cost-effective.
There are groups who argue against nuclear power for a variety of reasons, some environmental, some political, and some were formed to protest the operation of specific plants that have a track record of environmental damage. Some of these organizations are led by or advised by nuclear physicists and engineers, who know a hell of a lot more about the technical aspects of nuclear power than 99% of the people reading this.
Normal people can't understand the way computers think. That's why we're so "strange/weird". We think in an analytical and logical fashion
Well normal people can't understand a lot of fields; if you're in a large company and think your job is all wizardly, go see what the tax lawyers in your company have to deal with.
it makes no sense, from a business perspective, to continue distributing products in a way that ended up costing a company more in lost sales figures than actual sales.
only whether the particular employee has the skills for the job.
The bios generally give information as to their training and work experience, so they seem pretty relevant to your concerns.
They didn't seem overly concerned with objective criteria that indicated success or failure of their ventures, only that everyone was "on board".
My experience has been different. I've worked in commercial and corporate litigation, which means I've gotten to see a large amount of communications, meeting minutes, financial reports, audits, valuation reports, etc. As much as we all like to think of these people as shallow, incompetent hacks, they do tend to be pretty sharp, and VERY focused on results. If a division is showing poor performance they definitely get very interested.
So doing the job and doing it well often wasn't enough for them; what they really wanted was for you to buy into it heart and soul, a status that many people learned to fake around them.
That's true, they do like people to have a sort of cheerleader mentality, probably because (a) they think that it helps performance, and (b) they themselves tend to have it. Honestly it's an easy state of mind to fall into.
All of a sudden it begins to sound reasonable... basic law should be written in normal language.
IAAL. Give me an example of a "basic law in normal language." And I will show how people will be able to either twist it or how it is so overly broad that it encompasses even completely inoffensive, harmless behavior, or I will link you to a similar law that actually IS written in simple language.
This is where you are wrong. An entire generation or more has been raised to believe in its own innate and unearned importance, and bolstered with a solid and unshakable faith in its responsibility-less intrinsic rights. They truly believe that they are entitled to do whatsoever they please, whenever they please to, and that they are educated and savvy enough to inject their opinions in any arena they see fit, and how dare anyone presume to tell them otherwise. Their rights are absolute at all times, without qualification of any kind.
Hahahahaa....the "OH NOES", that NEVER gets old. Still funny EVERYTIME someone says it. You are a comedic GENIUS.
Everyone knows what the GP was saying; that in full-scale conflict any resource of the enemy--military or civilian--is a "valid" target. I didn't raise the Geneva Convention as some sort of universally binding law, but rather as an example that it is commonly accepted, by most enlightened societies, that there should be rules in war.
The Geneva Convention was held in 1949 (I wonder what spurred that?). I guess "moral war" (HAHAHAHA) wasn't even defined yet for the referenced combatants or us thicky slashdot neaderthals.
The second Geneva Convention was ratified in 1906 (including by the U.S.) and prohibits the mistreatment of wounded enemy soldiers (aka "enemy resources"). So I guess it was defined for the referenced combatants, but not you thicky slashdot neanderthals.
The only reason "Public Domain" is not listed there is that it is not a license.
Wasn't that Radcliffe's main reason why it couldn't be considered Open Source? Open Source in capital letters means asserting continuing control over something. Public domain is the release of all control.
Slashdot Mirror
The trailer looks pretty bad. But then again, the original show was pretty bad, too.
You might think with that big pile of cash that bailed out executive bonuses, that homeowners might have gotten a break or at least a bit of mercy, but that certainly isn't the case.
They did, actually, through various new mortgage relief programs.
They just keep on telling themselves they have "the best healthcare system in the world", which (IMHO) is only true for the minority of rich americans that don't really need the insurance companies anyway...
The UK has some of the worst survival rates for cancer in the world. In the US the breast cancer survival rate is 83.9%, but in the UK it's 69.7%. From a statistical standpoint this is a huge difference, and represents thousands of people who died in the UK, but would have lived had they been in the US.
But when I look back at the math that was done 100 years ago, I find very little of it unused.
Oh come on, you are seriously thinking that if you picked up a 100 year old math journal, most of the articles would have introduced things that are still being used?
You can get forebearance on student loans, but interest still accumulates.
Worse than that, when forbearance ends, they capitalize the interest.
What I think is criminal is how we can only deduct $2500 of our interest payments.
Numbers show otherwise, nuclear power while they have a high initial pricetag the cost per watt afterwards is much lower.
No, it's not, at least not in the U.S.
It is politically risky to talk about building a nuclear powerplant in the US. Look at Europe and Asia, lots of nice big nuclear plants popping up.
Heavily subsidized by the government. And still hideously expensive.
Well, yeah, but I wouldn't call those "professions," just jobs.
Lots of their concerns could be taken away if one of these [wikipedia.org] was the first thing they thought of when nuclear was mentioned.
But not the main roadblock to nuclear power in the US: cost.
(a) Sure, the drudge work in architecture doesn't require out of the box thinking, but that's true of most creative fields, even computer science. The average coder does not spend all day thinking up new ways to do things.
Very little creativity is required, but a lot of pattern matching, like detective's work. But rare a doctor discovers a new disease; some come up with a new treatment.
When you get something as complicated as the human body, I think it does go beyond pattern matching. Dentists are a little different because there is very little we do not know about the teeth right now.
Finally, I don't know much about law firsthand, but still I am pretty sure that rarely a lawyer invents a completely new defense. In most cases old, well known defenses and tactics work just fine. Law is very conservative, and I believe that most cases are solved and tried by methods that were known hundreds of years ago, as far back as the Roman Empire. Their "secret language" is Latin, not Klingon.
By that rationale coding is the same; the basic principles have been the same for decades. Attacking a legal problem properly requires a lot of imagination, actually, since the facts of any particular case are rarely clean enough to fit easily into a legal solution.
No, IMO. Most professions involve endless repeats from the same, small box of tricks. Only a few trades could be comparable - arts, for example (but not all arts!), then some small percentage of engineering jobs... I can't think of much else. Majority of workers are employed to simply do their daily job (like driving a bus,) not to invent things.
Huh? You really think so? Medicine, law, and architecture spring to mind as requiring some degree of out of the box thinking.
Well I've had to do work that touches on tax law and it's pretty damn complicated. And that goes double for the actuarial stuff I've been exposed to.
Folks, can we pretty please think of another name for this stuff? 50 years worth of misinformation is, I fear, holding us back. People here the word "nuclear" and immediately start shitting their pants with fear.
Folks, can you all stop reacting to stories regarding nuclear power on slashdot by falling over at your computers, foaming at the mouth, and shrieking about how the general public are all so stupid that they oppose any use of nuclear power because they're luddites and they're not as scientifically informed as all of us blah blah blah.
There are 104 nuclear reactors in this country. They provide almost 20% of the country's electricity consumption. They are not thronged by those hordes of sign-waving hippies that most of you seem to think are keeping nuclear power down. There have not been any new nuclear plants built in this country in a long time not because of protesters, but because they are insanely and hideously expensive to build. They are for the most part not cost-effective.
There are groups who argue against nuclear power for a variety of reasons, some environmental, some political, and some were formed to protest the operation of specific plants that have a track record of environmental damage. Some of these organizations are led by or advised by nuclear physicists and engineers, who know a hell of a lot more about the technical aspects of nuclear power than 99% of the people reading this.
Normal people can't understand the way computers think. That's why we're so "strange/weird". We think in an analytical and logical fashion
Well normal people can't understand a lot of fields; if you're in a large company and think your job is all wizardly, go see what the tax lawyers in your company have to deal with.
perhaps because good programmers have to constantly question assumptions and think outside the box to come up with good designs.
I think that's true for a lot of professions, though.
it makes no sense, from a business perspective, to continue distributing products in a way that ended up costing a company more in lost sales figures than actual sales.
But information wants to be FREE!
only whether the particular employee has the skills for the job.
The bios generally give information as to their training and work experience, so they seem pretty relevant to your concerns.
They didn't seem overly concerned with objective criteria that indicated success or failure of their ventures, only that everyone was "on board".
My experience has been different. I've worked in commercial and corporate litigation, which means I've gotten to see a large amount of communications, meeting minutes, financial reports, audits, valuation reports, etc. As much as we all like to think of these people as shallow, incompetent hacks, they do tend to be pretty sharp, and VERY focused on results. If a division is showing poor performance they definitely get very interested.
So doing the job and doing it well often wasn't enough for them; what they really wanted was for you to buy into it heart and soul, a status that many people learned to fake around them.
That's true, they do like people to have a sort of cheerleader mentality, probably because (a) they think that it helps performance, and (b) they themselves tend to have it. Honestly it's an easy state of mind to fall into.
All of a sudden it begins to sound reasonable... basic law should be written in normal language.
IAAL. Give me an example of a "basic law in normal language." And I will show how people will be able to either twist it or how it is so overly broad that it encompasses even completely inoffensive, harmless behavior, or I will link you to a similar law that actually IS written in simple language.
This is where you are wrong. An entire generation or more has been raised to believe in its own innate and unearned importance, and bolstered with a solid and unshakable faith in its responsibility-less intrinsic rights. They truly believe that they are entitled to do whatsoever they please, whenever they please to, and that they are educated and savvy enough to inject their opinions in any arena they see fit, and how dare anyone presume to tell them otherwise. Their rights are absolute at all times, without qualification of any kind.
Every generation says that.
Obviously Texas lawmakers are unfamiliar with the legal principle
In Texas lawmakers tend to be unfamiliar with ANY legal principle.
Everyone knows that the house always wins, anyone with half a brain can figure out the odds and should not play.
No, the house usually wins. If the house always won, they'd go out of business.
Hahahahaa....the "OH NOES", that NEVER gets old. Still funny EVERYTIME someone says it. You are a comedic GENIUS.
Everyone knows what the GP was saying; that in full-scale conflict any resource of the enemy--military or civilian--is a "valid" target. I didn't raise the Geneva Convention as some sort of universally binding law, but rather as an example that it is commonly accepted, by most enlightened societies, that there should be rules in war.
The Geneva Convention was held in 1949 (I wonder what spurred that?). I guess "moral war" (HAHAHAHA) wasn't even defined yet for the referenced combatants or us thicky slashdot neaderthals.
The second Geneva Convention was ratified in 1906 (including by the U.S.) and prohibits the mistreatment of wounded enemy soldiers (aka "enemy resources"). So I guess it was defined for the referenced combatants, but not you thicky slashdot neanderthals.
Let me think, which do I trust more, my own judgment or the judgment of anonymous slashdot modders? Think I'll go with me.
Nah, I don't think so. It fits in with the sarcastic thing.
The only reason "Public Domain" is not listed there is that it is not a license.
Wasn't that Radcliffe's main reason why it couldn't be considered Open Source? Open Source in capital letters means asserting continuing control over something. Public domain is the release of all control.