Women have been, and continue to be, a protected class in the US.
You got that right. I remember how we protected them from the vote, how we protected them from the work place, how we protected them when we declared that marital rape didn't exist, and how we continue to protect them by paying them at lower rates than equivalently trained and experienced males.
Or to be more precise. Some people claim it went down to 2000, but even the larger 100,000 figure is in dispute.
Secondly the few hundred is unadulterated BS. In fact this is one easy way to spot a fake claim of a "lost tribe". If it is below a thousand members with no contact with the outside world it will pretty soon die out from inbreeding.
There have been times where the total number of humans was less than 40k with some speculation that there were as few as 2k for a while.
This is not yet fully settled, as the wikipedia article itself indicates. Y chromosome and mitochondrial DNA diversity suggest this, other genes speak to the contrary.
Precisely, which is why medical researchers tend to speak of person-years. They also readily volunteer that people dying of cancer or heart attack at age 55 is a completely different thing than people dying of the same illnesses at age 90, since the latter would have died of something else not much later anyhow.
Like politics for example.
The statistic, as I pointed out, is meaningless and it is not used by medical researchers. Who is playing politics you say?
This is a meaningless statistic. Serious medical researchers report this in person-years lost, not in meaningless "millions of deaths". To illustrate, let's suppose those 57 million people were infirm and about to die, but pollution hastened their demise by one second. Then this is not a big deal. Personally I would happily shorten my life for exactly one second in exchange for the conveniences of modern life. On the other hand if these people had their lives substantially shortened then this is a veritable tragedy.
However such misleading headline doesn't surprise me: the UN is a master of over-hyped sky-is-falling chicken-little statistics.
And/ I can come up with a concept in a novel about a very clean, efficient family car that spits into four when needed and rejoins into one when going for vacation.
That took a minute of my time. Still the entire credit would go to whoever actually built such contraption.
This shows how screwed up UI philosophy is among the nerd crowd. What alternative does the user have? Saw off the side of his foot?
Or perhaps you are going to suggest the standard OSF cop-out: well, it's open source, if it doesn't work for you, you can redesign the entire brake and pedal subsystem, since we are all obviously expert automotive engineers with scads of free time.
Actually if this was a scientific paper it would be consider proven. Outside of high-school lab experiments most "scientific proof" is rather indirect and makes ample use of Occam razor's. Also indirect evidence is common place and readily used.
This plane was lost in a much larger ocean and out of place to where it was supposed to be, so naturally it will take a bit longer to find the first remains. So I'm not sure what is your point.
Well it already happened twice in the last three years, (AF447, MH370) so we know the answer that one: yes it may very well happen.
However you don't like a version of reality where one can lose planes in the middle of the ocean and reject the evidence, and other people bask in this self-comfort and give you a +4 insightful.
This is where the debate leaves the realm of science and enters the terrain of speculation. How fast can we replace crops to the new climate is not a scientific question in the same level as "do we have AGW or not?". This last one has been settled, the former is a lot more complicated, and frankly the UN doesn't have a very good record on predictions.
Vietnam was fighting for its independence. In fact had it been granted after WWII as France had promised they would have likely become a capitalist country like the rest of Indochina.
Instead we cornered them into a communist corner by bombing them and their children with napalm and they are the "bad guys" because the Chinese gave them some rifles?
Don't ever bother with jobs that have long, very specific skill lists.
Except that once I saw an ad like this from a company where a friend used to work at. "who do you have in mind for that job?" I asked.
It turned out that they didn't have anyone in mind. A very senior and valuable person had just resigned and they needed someone with that specific set of skills ASAP, hence the long ad. Since I happened to meet the requirements I applied for the job and got hired within a week.
As a data point, a while back I peaked into the Vim source code and was amazed at how complicated the code base was. On the other hand I was very impressed with the sophisticated data structures it was using to support large files efficiently.
make the executive rethink the idea or try to figure out ways to avoid the previous mistake
Precisely. This is the flip side of the equation. Often older workers forget that there might have been a simple, single reason why their previous effort failed. A reason that perhaps we can avoid or has been done away with advances in technology.
As a manager I always appreciated a comment such as "last time the difficulties in that approach were A, B and C" over the comment "impossible, we tried it it didn't work". The former allows the team (we always discuss things such as these as a group) to evaluate if we want to call the whole thing off or if we can forestall those issues somehow and its worth a second attempt at grabbing the ring.
No place has ever been 100% capitalist or socialist. It has always been a matter of degrees. To call 95% capitalist USA socialist because it has 5% of socialism is either ignorant or disingenuous.
This happened initially, but then the government exempted new more efficient cars from the banning-days regulation and every one switched to newer cleaner cars.
Pollution went down measurably and hasn't really been a problem since.
So in other words, they tried an alternative, and found it inferior.
Because that is the only possible alternative. We all know that if a product fails it's because it was technologically inferior. There are no other known reasons or possible externalities. This is whythe x86 instruction set won: because it was better and all others were found inferior. This is also why Windows won over Mac/Linux/Unix, because these last three were found to be inferior.
In fact, many tried alternatives that they found inferior to X.
Except for NextSTEP, Android, OSX and Symbian, which are clearly superior, but hey, who's counting?
From missing tools and compilers to forced kernel rebuilds for the most trivial configuration change,
You do realize that this describes Linux circa 1996 much better than Solaris in 1996, which always shipped with a full suite of compilers and developer tools, right? Back then you couldn't load a new driver into Linux without recompiling the kernel.
That was in fact one of the key selling points of Sun hardware: you get the software for free.
Absolutely. I've been using a car for twenty years that doesn't make me an expert mechanic. It's funny that simply because you open a windows manager or write a few function calls for X you consider yourself an expert. on it.
The people who do know the X innards inside and out, namely X.org, says it sucks and are writing Wayland.i
Except that most people don't use X network transparency. You can achieve the same effect without it, and this is what most people do, but they don't even know it. They see a remote client and immediately think "it must be network transparency!" If that were the case then surely windows is network transparent since it supports remote desktop.
As I said, network transparency is the mating call of the X noob.
Yes, it is a flamebait-ish statement, but it also happens to be the truth.
Commercial implementations of Unix suck as a rule,
Wrong. OSX doesn't suck, Solaris didn't suck in its time, Android doesn't suck and even your much beloved Linux didn't get to be a real serious operating system until IBM decided to adopt it and spent massive amounts of money bringing it up to enterprise quality.
The one thing they have in common is that they all looked deep into the bowels of the beast and they all rejected. The commercialization thing is a red herring and you know it.
And you would be wrong. No commercial implementation of Unix uses X (NextStep, OSX, Android) and even Sun back in the day tried its own alternative (SunNews). Every single person who has gone deep into the bowels of the X beast says it sucks, including the X.org people.
But a few X fanbois think they know better 'cuz hmm erh.... network transparency!
Slashdot Mirror
Women have been, and continue to be, a protected class in the US.
You got that right. I remember how we protected them from the vote, how we protected them from the work place, how we protected them when we declared that marital rape didn't exist, and how we continue to protect them by paying them at lower rates than equivalently trained and experienced males.
Them so lucky.
[citation needed]
Or to be more precise. Some people claim it went down to 2000, but even the larger 100,000 figure is in dispute.
Secondly the few hundred is unadulterated BS. In fact this is one easy way to spot a fake claim of a "lost tribe". If it is below a thousand members with no contact with the outside world it will pretty soon die out from inbreeding.
There have been times where the total number of humans was less than 40k with some speculation that there were as few as 2k for a while.
This is not yet fully settled, as the wikipedia article itself indicates. Y chromosome and mitochondrial DNA diversity suggest this, other genes speak to the contrary.
You could say that of any category of death.
Precisely, which is why medical researchers tend to speak of person-years. They also readily volunteer that people dying of cancer or heart attack at age 55 is a completely different thing than people dying of the same illnesses at age 90, since the latter would have died of something else not much later anyhow.
Like politics for example.
The statistic, as I pointed out, is meaningless and it is not used by medical researchers. Who is playing politics you say?
This is a meaningless statistic. Serious medical researchers report this in person-years lost, not in meaningless "millions of deaths". To illustrate, let's suppose those 57 million people were infirm and about to die, but pollution hastened their demise by one second. Then this is not a big deal. Personally I would happily shorten my life for exactly one second in exchange for the conveniences of modern life. On the other hand if these people had their lives substantially shortened then this is a veritable tragedy.
However such misleading headline doesn't surprise me: the UN is a master of over-hyped sky-is-falling chicken-little statistics.
And/ I can come up with a concept in a novel about a very clean, efficient family car that spits into four when needed and rejoins into one when going for vacation.
That took a minute of my time. Still the entire credit would go to whoever actually built such contraption.
This shows how screwed up UI philosophy is among the nerd crowd. What alternative does the user have? Saw off the side of his foot?
Or perhaps you are going to suggest the standard OSF cop-out: well, it's open source, if it doesn't work for you, you can redesign the entire brake and pedal subsystem, since we are all obviously expert automotive engineers with scads of free time.
While important evidence, it's hardly proof
Actually if this was a scientific paper it would be consider proven. Outside of high-school lab experiments most "scientific proof" is rather indirect and makes ample use of Occam razor's. Also indirect evidence is common place and readily used.
This plane was lost in a much larger ocean and out of place to where it was supposed to be, so naturally it will take a bit longer to find the first remains. So I'm not sure what is your point.
Well it already happened twice in the last three years, (AF447, MH370) so we know the answer that one: yes it may very well happen.
However you don't like a version of reality where one can lose planes in the middle of the ocean and reject the evidence, and other people bask in this self-comfort and give you a +4 insightful.
This is where the debate leaves the realm of science and enters the terrain of speculation. How fast can we replace crops to the new climate is not a scientific question in the same level as "do we have AGW or not?". This last one has been settled, the former is a lot more complicated, and frankly the UN doesn't have a very good record on predictions.
Vietnam was fighting for its independence. In fact had it been granted after WWII as France had promised they would have likely become a capitalist country like the rest of Indochina.
Instead we cornered them into a communist corner by bombing them and their children with napalm and they are the "bad guys" because the Chinese gave them some rifles?
Don't ever bother with jobs that have long, very specific skill lists.
Except that once I saw an ad like this from a company where a friend used to work at. "who do you have in mind for that job?" I asked.
It turned out that they didn't have anyone in mind. A very senior and valuable person had just resigned and they needed someone with that specific set of skills ASAP, hence the long ad. Since I happened to meet the requirements I applied for the job and got hired within a week.
As a data point, a while back I peaked into the Vim source code and was amazed at how complicated the code base was. On the other hand I was very impressed with the sophisticated data structures it was using to support large files efficiently.
make the executive rethink the idea or try to figure out ways to avoid the previous mistake
Precisely. This is the flip side of the equation. Often older workers forget that there might have been a simple, single reason why their previous effort failed. A reason that perhaps we can avoid or has been done away with advances in technology.
As a manager I always appreciated a comment such as "last time the difficulties in that approach were A, B and C" over the comment "impossible, we tried it it didn't work". The former allows the team (we always discuss things such as these as a group) to evaluate if we want to call the whole thing off or if we can forestall those issues somehow and its worth a second attempt at grabbing the ring.
No place has ever been 100% capitalist or socialist. It has always been a matter of degrees. To call 95% capitalist USA socialist because it has 5% of socialism is either ignorant or disingenuous.
This happened initially, but then the government exempted new more efficient cars from the banning-days regulation and every one switched to newer cleaner cars.
Pollution went down measurably and hasn't really been a problem since.
So in other words, they tried an alternative, and found it inferior.
Because that is the only possible alternative. We all know that if a product fails it's because it was technologically inferior. There are no other known reasons or possible externalities. This is whythe x86 instruction set won: because it was better and all others were found inferior. This is also why Windows won over Mac/Linux/Unix, because these last three were found to be inferior.
In fact, many tried alternatives that they found inferior to X.
Except for NextSTEP, Android, OSX and Symbian, which are clearly superior, but hey, who's counting?
Right, because when I said Sun had tried an alternative to X, I certainly meant to say that X didn't run on Solaris.
Nor were we aware it ever did run X, but thankfully you came here and told us, so now we know better.
From missing tools and compilers to forced kernel rebuilds for the most trivial configuration change,
You do realize that this describes Linux circa 1996 much better than Solaris in 1996, which always shipped with a full suite of compilers and developer tools, right? Back then you couldn't load a new driver into Linux without recompiling the kernel.
That was in fact one of the key selling points of Sun hardware: you get the software for free.
Absolutely. I've been using a car for twenty years that doesn't make me an expert mechanic. It's funny that simply because you open a windows manager or write a few function calls for X you consider yourself an expert. on it.
The people who do know the X innards inside and out, namely X.org, says it sucks and are writing Wayland.i
Except that most people don't use X network transparency. You can achieve the same effect without it, and this is what most people do, but they don't even know it. They see a remote client and immediately think "it must be network transparency!" If that were the case then surely windows is network transparent since it supports remote desktop.
As I said, network transparency is the mating call of the X noob.
Yes, it is a flamebait-ish statement, but it also happens to be the truth.
Commercial implementations of Unix suck as a rule,
Wrong. OSX doesn't suck, Solaris didn't suck in its time, Android doesn't suck and even your much beloved Linux didn't get to be a real serious operating system until IBM decided to adopt it and spent massive amounts of money bringing it up to enterprise quality.
... and X.org is commercialized how?
The one thing they have in common is that they all looked deep into the bowels of the beast and they all rejected. The commercialization thing is a red herring and you know it.
And you would be wrong. No commercial implementation of Unix uses X (NextStep, OSX, Android) and even Sun back in the day tried its own alternative (SunNews). Every single person who has gone deep into the bowels of the X beast says it sucks, including the X.org people.
But a few X fanbois think they know better 'cuz hmm erh.... network transparency!