Gather round, kids, it's global warming again. What are we going to see this time? Falling skies and denial while staring it in the face, we've had it all in the past, what will we see today?
But really, folks, could we try something new? The old slogans ain't entertaining anymore, it's almost like you don't even try anymore to convince anyone.
The problem is that it's a very small step from "I'm gambling with my health because that extra money allows me to take a vacation to Hawaii" and "I have to do without health insurance because I can't afford it if I want to eat daily".
Well, governments (democratic ones, at least) at least nominally have the interest of their constituents in mind. Corporations don't. Corporations are accountable to shareholders, not you (unless you hold shares).
Corporations and its acting figures are also not under your control. Not even nominally. You don't get to elect the Alphabet CEO.
This is one of the reasons why I'm always a bit puzzled when people would rather trust a corporation than their government. With a government, you at least have some kind of say. But I guess some people just want to be ruled, without having a voice.
Don't ignore that all the fuel that takes you to Mars and back is essentially dead weight on your ascent from Earth. Which means you need more fuel and bigger rockets. Which means that you have to haul more weight into orbit. Which means that you need... you get the idea.
The time necessary and the human factor (how do you keep them trained and sane in the long time in a confined space? Nobody likes to see the first step on the Mars be a stumble because the person taking it has no muscle mass left, with the rest of the astronauts laughing their asses off because they're at the point where they would very gladly leave him there after smelling his farts for about a year in transit) are something I didn't even touch. The engineering alone is already something you don't solve with the snap of a finger.
Don't get your hopes up. What you'll get today is the same kind of people you got at the turn of the millennium: People who don't care whether they study CS, BA or law, what they care about is money and where they go to is whatever promises the most of that.
And they'll be facing the same problem as those back at the turn of the millennium: That CS is fundamentally different from BA and law in that simply hoovering up the book's content and barfing it onto the test isn't enough to pass.
That's pretty much the problem here. This isn't business administration. You don't get far by rote learning. Unfortunately, that's the most you can hope for if you just do it with your eyes on the money, not because it's really something you WANT to do.
The big bucks, though, are only paid to those that actually are not only very interested in the matter but also have the mindset to get into it. It's the people that thrive on solving problems with computers and who don't consider it a chore but a leisure activity to dig into complex code structures, those that actually enjoy doing those things, who are doing it because they want to do it, not because money is even involved.
And yes, it is actually very possible to learn a language in a single day. If, and only if, it is a language from a paradigm that you fully understood and where you already know a few related languages (and with "know" I mean "be able to teach someone"). If you're proficient in C++ and Java, learning C# is doable in a day. You'll not have the same level of expertise and you'll probably spend a good amount of time with the MSDN open, something a seasoned C# programmer probably wouldn't need and could probably do much faster, but you will understand what's going on and apply what you know to the new language. I would not necessarily assume that it's going to be so easy with a fundamentally different language concept like, say, if the aforementioned C++/Java programmer was tasked with learning Prolog. Yes, he'll certainly pick it up faster than someone with zero programming background, but I highly doubt that a day will suffice.
Yes, but at least with a halfway realistic time frame.
Flying to the moon is fairly easy. You're dealing with a body that has a fraction of the mass and thus gravity, and to return from it you basically fall back into Earth's gravity well after overcoming a fairly trivial one.
This is fundamentally different for a flight to another planet.
Please don't forget to launch Pence too. I know it's easy to forget him (let's face it, he's the blandest VP since Quayle), but please, at least this one time, don't.
I have to admit, back when "Obamacare" was all the rage, I stood there baffled and befuddled that anyone could oppose universal healthcare. You see, over here in Europe, you can do a lot to us. You can take away our guns, we don't really care about them that much, you can take away our holidays, you can make us work overtime for no pay, there's very little that you can't do to us, just as a few right-leaning governments recently proved.
But talking about taking away universal healthcare would probably lead to worse riots than you'd see in the US if someone tried to repeal the 2nd.
Just the idea that I somehow can't afford an operation or even going to a doctor, or that I can't afford some medicine that I need is absolutely alien to us. We also don't worry about which hospital an ambulance takes us to, the closest one is the correct one. The very idea of not being able to afford medical care is kinda ridiculous to us.
Why anyone would not want that is really hard to understand over here.
And that solves the problem of those that can currently also not participate in a healthcare system, i.e. the ones that cannot simply stuff money in some account because they live paycheck to paycheck, in what way?
Or, wait, do we simply have them die off? That's a solution of the problem, I give you that...
Corporations are not inherently evil. They're just intelligence without conscience or accountability, neither legal nor moral. That usually leads to pretty rotten actions, which we consider evil, but corporations are not evil. Corporations neither think nor act.
The shell of a corporation only allows people to act without having to justify their actions morally, because they have to do something, because if they don't, someone else would have and they'd have been fired.
The main difference to the Third Reich is that in a corporation even the CEO can point to someone to blame that forces his hand.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, they sure live in their own reality, I give you that.
Could we get to see that instead of his next speech? I'm pretty sure it would be more interesting and informative.
Diseases also don't care about borders. Or whether you're rich or poor when you get into contact with it.
That's why there's research in them.
The benefits become instantly clear when you compare the name of the main recipients with the name of politicians.
Gather round, kids, it's global warming again. What are we going to see this time? Falling skies and denial while staring it in the face, we've had it all in the past, what will we see today?
But really, folks, could we try something new? The old slogans ain't entertaining anymore, it's almost like you don't even try anymore to convince anyone.
If that's the case, it's odd that nobody offed the hairpiece yet.
The problem is that it's a very small step from "I'm gambling with my health because that extra money allows me to take a vacation to Hawaii" and "I have to do without health insurance because I can't afford it if I want to eat daily".
Well, governments (democratic ones, at least) at least nominally have the interest of their constituents in mind. Corporations don't. Corporations are accountable to shareholders, not you (unless you hold shares).
Corporations and its acting figures are also not under your control. Not even nominally. You don't get to elect the Alphabet CEO.
This is one of the reasons why I'm always a bit puzzled when people would rather trust a corporation than their government. With a government, you at least have some kind of say. But I guess some people just want to be ruled, without having a voice.
Don't ignore that all the fuel that takes you to Mars and back is essentially dead weight on your ascent from Earth. Which means you need more fuel and bigger rockets. Which means that you have to haul more weight into orbit. Which means that you need... you get the idea.
The time necessary and the human factor (how do you keep them trained and sane in the long time in a confined space? Nobody likes to see the first step on the Mars be a stumble because the person taking it has no muscle mass left, with the rest of the astronauts laughing their asses off because they're at the point where they would very gladly leave him there after smelling his farts for about a year in transit) are something I didn't even touch. The engineering alone is already something you don't solve with the snap of a finger.
Don't get your hopes up. What you'll get today is the same kind of people you got at the turn of the millennium: People who don't care whether they study CS, BA or law, what they care about is money and where they go to is whatever promises the most of that.
And they'll be facing the same problem as those back at the turn of the millennium: That CS is fundamentally different from BA and law in that simply hoovering up the book's content and barfing it onto the test isn't enough to pass.
That's pretty much the problem here. This isn't business administration. You don't get far by rote learning. Unfortunately, that's the most you can hope for if you just do it with your eyes on the money, not because it's really something you WANT to do.
The big bucks, though, are only paid to those that actually are not only very interested in the matter but also have the mindset to get into it. It's the people that thrive on solving problems with computers and who don't consider it a chore but a leisure activity to dig into complex code structures, those that actually enjoy doing those things, who are doing it because they want to do it, not because money is even involved.
And yes, it is actually very possible to learn a language in a single day. If, and only if, it is a language from a paradigm that you fully understood and where you already know a few related languages (and with "know" I mean "be able to teach someone"). If you're proficient in C++ and Java, learning C# is doable in a day. You'll not have the same level of expertise and you'll probably spend a good amount of time with the MSDN open, something a seasoned C# programmer probably wouldn't need and could probably do much faster, but you will understand what's going on and apply what you know to the new language. I would not necessarily assume that it's going to be so easy with a fundamentally different language concept like, say, if the aforementioned C++/Java programmer was tasked with learning Prolog. Yes, he'll certainly pick it up faster than someone with zero programming background, but I highly doubt that a day will suffice.
Explain why this is required.
Try to explain this to a spoiled brat that's used to getting what he wants if he only screams loud enough and holds his breath.
Yes, but at least with a halfway realistic time frame.
Flying to the moon is fairly easy. You're dealing with a body that has a fraction of the mass and thus gravity, and to return from it you basically fall back into Earth's gravity well after overcoming a fairly trivial one.
This is fundamentally different for a flight to another planet.
I've seen Trump. Trust me. ADHD seems way more likely than high IQ.
Please don't forget to launch Pence too. I know it's easy to forget him (let's face it, he's the blandest VP since Quayle), but please, at least this one time, don't.
Nah. We'd also call him desperate to pull a publicity stunt because he feels like his approval ratings are sliding.
To Mars in 4 years. From what is essentially standstill. Keep on dreaming.
It could be that he tries to be more approachable for his constituents.
That's why I wonder whether some histrionic traits come into play too. Normally they're way better at hiding that their egocentric assholes.
More that he's acting like a kid throwing a tantrum. Maybe a spanking would help?
You are aware that we get Pence as a replacement, right?
I'm still convinced that's the main reason nobody pulled the trigger on the annoying orange yet.
I have to admit, back when "Obamacare" was all the rage, I stood there baffled and befuddled that anyone could oppose universal healthcare. You see, over here in Europe, you can do a lot to us. You can take away our guns, we don't really care about them that much, you can take away our holidays, you can make us work overtime for no pay, there's very little that you can't do to us, just as a few right-leaning governments recently proved.
But talking about taking away universal healthcare would probably lead to worse riots than you'd see in the US if someone tried to repeal the 2nd.
Just the idea that I somehow can't afford an operation or even going to a doctor, or that I can't afford some medicine that I need is absolutely alien to us. We also don't worry about which hospital an ambulance takes us to, the closest one is the correct one. The very idea of not being able to afford medical care is kinda ridiculous to us.
Why anyone would not want that is really hard to understand over here.
And that solves the problem of those that can currently also not participate in a healthcare system, i.e. the ones that cannot simply stuff money in some account because they live paycheck to paycheck, in what way?
Or, wait, do we simply have them die off? That's a solution of the problem, I give you that...
Why do you think one delusion is more justifiable or better than any other?
Corporations are not inherently evil. They're just intelligence without conscience or accountability, neither legal nor moral. That usually leads to pretty rotten actions, which we consider evil, but corporations are not evil. Corporations neither think nor act.
The shell of a corporation only allows people to act without having to justify their actions morally, because they have to do something, because if they don't, someone else would have and they'd have been fired.
The main difference to the Third Reich is that in a corporation even the CEO can point to someone to blame that forces his hand.