No. Just calling a spade a spade. What explanation can there be to mention that the "other guy" is/was the "ex-boyfriend" as a counter-argument? What relevant information does that elucidate? What is the point?
Passive-aggressively demonizing other people like that is as immature as it gets online,
Not as much as mentioning that the "other guy", the harasser, was "the ex-boyfriend" as if that explained things, without context with which to interpret that precious pearl of information.
short of doxxing to incite harassment.
If you say so, it must be so. See, if the shoe fits, wear it or see a podiatrist (or in this case, psychiatrist.)
Also, when it comes to handling all simple 404, there could be a browser extension that would redirect you to archive.org. People would be able to use that on existing content. It's what I'm already doing manually, only this would be faster.
By the way, I always thought that URIs were supposed to handle precisely this - that they were supposed to be unique, universally accessible identifiers for contents and resources - identifiers that, once assigned, wouldn't need to be changed to access the same contents or resources in the future. Oh, hell. Now we have to add extra layers on top of that?
Well, they are. Content does not have to have the same longevity or life-cycle as the URI that once pointed to it, though.
Say what you will, but the AC is correct about this being a risk that vanishes in an all-male workforce.
The risk doesn't vanish. It simply gets masked, just as one would mask if we have an all Caucasian (or X=whatever ethnic label of your choosing) workforce where racial problems vanish all of the sudden.
It's going to be hilarious when openly gay people join your workforce en mass.
What kind of message does that send?
That women shouldn't have to deal with harassment?
It tells the world that women just can't handle the same work environments that men can,
Men don't sexually harass men... usually. And most men do not sexually harass women either. It's just the perverted few who think it is women's fault for being unable (or unreasonably unwilling) to deal with their creepy world views.
It is the same argument that was made against Blacks from working shoulder to shoulder with Caucasians - they'd get harassed, and when wouldn't put up, there would be complains that they are not up to the task of dealing with "the realities of work" (read, "being a good boy.")
You are the problem.
Mirror, mirror. Who had the biggest problem with women of them all?
And women wonder why companies are so reluctant to hire them.
It is not "companies". Not even "some companies", but some men.
Having an all male workforce means not having to deal with headaches like this.
It also means fostering an environment where juvenile-minded males never grow up into reasonable, professional men, fostering a culture that eventually and surely will spawn a molester or sociopath.
Posting AC because you liberal pussies are going to clutch your pearls and mod me down into the dirt, even though deep down you know I'm right.
No, you are wrong. I know that deep down. Posting as myself because my gonads prevent me from posting like a coward.
I am a systems administrator who works for a radiology department. First, I would like to say that I wouldn't want a call center tech reading my MRI no matter how adaptable he or she is.
It is a poor analogy, but I think I understand what the recruiter was trying to explain
And maybe he needs the help of a A+ English major so that he knows how to explain himself better </rimshot>
Bloomberg is a hypocrite, not a hero. He's all for disarming the general populace since he has the money to live in a secure home and hire armed guards for personal protection. The rest of us don't have that luxury and must fend for ourselves.
If you "fend for yourself" with a gun, you're more likely to be murdered by it than to save the life of you or someone you love.
Citations please.
Never mind the chance your young child will blow off his head, or that of a friend.
That's what locks and safes are for. It's not rocket science and yet the hordes of idiots that live among the anti-gun crowd (and the idiots who own guns without a lock) seem too stupid to grasp this very simple concept.
It is a people problem. Studies have shown that the vast majority of first time murders already had extensive violent criminal records. Clearly the justice system is not doing these people or society justice, since there were ample opportunities to intervene before they took a human life.
15% of murders are committed by a domestic partner. 56% of murders are committed by friends or acquaintances. The notion that murders are committed against random people by some set of hardened, life-long criminals is not supported by data. Perhaps all the more so, given that convicted felons are generally prohibited from owning firearms.
Likewise, given that 65% of gun deaths (as distinguished from murders) are suicides, I have to say I consider it highly unlikely that the vast majority of gun violence is committed by people with extensive criminal records
There is data collected by the FBI and local state agencies if you'd like to check. For starters not all homicides are gun-related. Secondly, the question is not whether it is strangers murdering strangers, but whether 1) poverty and drug-related crimes/drug-related environments are fueling the bulk of homicides (and gun-related homicides in particular) and 2) the typical perpetrator has already a crime record.
The data I alluded, collected by various law enforcement agencies and 3rd party organizations/analysts points into that direction. African Americans and Hispanics (my community) are dis-proportionally represented in gun-related homicides. When you break down gun-related homicide by race, we find that among non-Hispanic Whites, the murder rates are comparable (slightly higher but still comparable) to those in Western Europe.
Furthermore, 80% of gun-related homicides are committed by hand guns, not the ZOMG assault weapons politicians like to ban. I cannot find the link to the FBI study where it showed the type of handguns used the most in homicides, but it clearly mentioned the majority of them were on the cheap end, 2nd-hand saturday night special type of hand guns, not the $500+ firearms the typical law-abiding gun-owner possess.
So, clearly, race and income are a factor. Since race and income are (still) tightly correlated in the US, we can generalize this by simply saying it is a class-related phenomenon. Add to the fact that drug-related crimes significantly affect African Americans (where there has been a marked breakdown in families and an increase in single-parent families), Hispanics and to a lesser extend Caucasians in the South due to the "meth" belt, we see a strong correlation with the war on drugs.
Now, I'm not saying we should not have tighter controls with firearms. I own firearms, and I conceal carry wherever it is legal. But I also acknowledge we should have much better ways to track who buys or sells what. Illegally acquired firearms and straw sales are a major factor in gun-related crime. So we have to deal with it.
But the primordial factors here are race/economics, poverty, even health ([a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2013/01/03/how-lead-caused-americas-violent-crime-epidemic/" target="new"]refer to lead poisoning as a possible cause in the spike of crime from the late 60's to the 80s[/a]). Most importantly, it is culture.
Fins and Swiss have significant %s of gun-ownership, and the Swiss can open carry, and yet you do not see the significant murder rates as in the US (though there are rates of spousal murder where alcohol is involved, but that is a universal.)
Honduras is the capital murder of the world, and although gun laws are flexible, most people simply do not own a piece legally (prices are out of reach to most - ownership is for the well-to-do). Poverty is rampant, the police is ill-equipped to deal with gang/drug related violence, and the country lacks institutions to deal with recidivism.
Nicaragua, adjacent to Honduras is the poorer of the two, with gun laws and legal private own
Snowden to Critics: Questioning Putin Has Opened Conversation About Surveillance
If he really wanted to ask questions about freedoms, he should have asked about the LGBT rights in Russia or Chechens' right for self-determination. In the US, asking about surveillance violations is the right question to ask because, by and large, it is one of the most pressing issues. In Russia, that ain't.
The proper question to ask when it comes to freedom is always the one concerning the greatest, most infamous violations.
The poor people would still be starving and living in squalor like they do now?
You are being facetious and spiteful. Yes, there are still hundred of millions of poor in India, but also, many hundred of millions have been lifted out of poverty because of the emergent tech/service industry.
In 2003-2004, the % of population in India living below the poverty line was over 37%. A decade later (meaning now), it is at 21%. This is a 56.75% drop in extreme poverty in a decade. Not shabby if you ask me. And if you consider that the population % living under poverty was almost 60% in the 1950s, then in 6 decades, poverty %s have been reduced by 2/3. Again, not shabby.
That there are still significant problems, like malnutrition, and a still vulnerable low-to-middle class? Of course. But to pretend or dismiss the significant advances that country has made just because they still have a lot to fix, that's disingenuous. It is equally disingenuous to pretend India made a fundamental mistake in investing in tech and education simply because that did not prove a 100% failure-free solution to all the significant problems the country had (and still has.)
The term "Oracle" is now more than the database. It is a fully-integrated business stack - BPM, OSB, Coherence, WebLogic, ADF, etc, etc, etc.
I mean, seriously, this is/was about a health care site, and people think the Oracle's technology involved in it for good or bad) was just on the database part?????? W. T. F?
Whether that is good or not, that's another thing, and an unimportant one because if a system is designed like crap, it won't matter what stack (proprietary or not) you use. It will be crap.
Please butt out of our domestic politics. It's none of your goddamn business, and yet foreign politicians know more about state-level politics in America than they do their own provinces.
As one American to another - STFU. Perhaps you are right in that other people should stick their noses in our internal affairs. But that does not change the truth of what the OP said (Dems and GOPers are pretty much right wing.)
That you chose to enforce the former instead of acknowledge the later, that is intellectually disingenuous to say the least. To kill the messenger is not supposed to be the American way.
"Capable of keep going under cold or heat in ways most animals would die"
Can't let you get away with that. My dog can go out when its below freezing quite happily. I need 2 layers of clothing plus a coat.
That would be a fine counter-argument if I had said that we were capable of keep going under cold or heat in ways all animals would die.. But I didn't, so...
I mean, c'mon. The context is clear, beasts of burden, cattle, foodstuff and prey, most of the stuff we compare against from the POV of being (or close to being) apex predators. Of course there are animals with better resistance to certain temperatures. Huskies and Polar bears >> us in the cold. Camels >> us in desert-like conditions.
But when you take the range of environments we were able to adapt since primitive times as a context, and we take the animals we domesticated and/or hunted/displaced, the generalization (from where I utilized the word "most animals") still stands.
As for heat, yes , we're slightly better adapted due to being able to sweat but that comes with a price - huge water consumption. Not very useful in a desert. Mr Camel solved the problem far better.
"We can survive bacteria, viruses and parasites and wounds"
So can most animals otherwise the most complex life would still be a sponge. And to use my dog as an example again - he can happily drink water from streams and puddles that would put me on the toilet for 2 days.
Don't get me wrong, I don't believe in ID anymore than anyone with an IQ greater than their shoe size, but as far as comparisons to other animals goes, the human body in the raw is pretty feeble. Even compared to our nearest cousin chimpanzees we're pretty hopeless physically - our muscles and bones are much weaker and they can survive falls from heights that would easily kill a human.
GoPro Project Claims Technology Is Making People Lose Empathy For Homeless
They can only make that claim if they have hard data that shows people in the past being more emphatic towards others. Without that, the claim is bogus.
There has always been compassionate people, before and now. And there has always been nihilistic, selfish people, before and now. Technology has nothing to do with it.
I started doing that a few weeks ago, and the benefits have been enormous. My setup is nothing fancy, just some props and books to elevate my keyboard and trackball, like this:
I got inspired by Marco Arment's DYI soda-can standing desk. I was struggling for a while thinking "what should I buy, how can do this". Arment's solution is so simple that inspired me to use whatever I had on my desk to put together a solution.
I'm thinking to build something similar with aluminum cans. But I do not drink soda, only beer, and I do not know if a standing desk made out of beer cans would be corporate appropriate:)
Anyways, my sciatica is not bothering me that much anymore since I started working standing. Once in a while I sit down (and I always sit down when I have to read a paper or report.) But I do most of my coding standing. The key part for me was to get a trackball for my set-up, to save elevated real-state.
In addition to the health benefits, I think coding standing helps me focus better. Entirely subjective of course.
Later, I plan to build a wood standing desk for my 5-year old daughter. I hope I can get her into the habit of doing more of her homework standing than sitting.
Even completely small things are unhealthy for the human body. The human body is absolute garbage, and it's yet more proof that "intelligent design" never happened.
I don't believe in intelligent design either, but you are reaching waaaay too far up your rear when building criticism against ID. Saying the human body is absolute garbage is as dumb as saying God created the world in 7 days.
A person can buy a Maserati, but i said person doesn't change the oil and let water and particulate go into the gas tank, the car will turn into garbage. The car wasn't garbage. The owner was a careless fool at best (and a f*tard at worst.)
Human bodies are actually quite resilient, tuned by evolution to be cursorial predators. Capable of keep going under cold or heat in ways most animals would die. And that was already a fact before we eve invented clothing. Put the mind next to the body (which is what makes us human) then we have clothing, and a whole new set of capabilities emerge. There are plenty of historical footnotes of soldiers going on long after their horses, donkeys and oxen died of exposure.
We can survive bacteria, viruses and parasites and wounds. We die of infections beyond a certain magnitude, similarly to most other Eukaryote organisms. If our bodies are garbage, so are the bodies of all Eukaryote organisms. I guess the only Eukaryote whose body is not garbage is Superman, but he is an illegal alien from Krypton so he doesn't matter.
I've been unemployed three times in the last 15 years. Once during the dot-com bust (on and off for almost a year). Then in 2008 (6 days right before my first daughter was born) for almost 4 months, and then just recently (end of the year 2013) for three months.
I cannot imagine how bad it is to be unemployed longer than that, and I consider myself lucky that it was just a few months. But even if it is a few months, as you said, it is stuff like COBRA and other eventualities that get you.
On my last unemployment event, when I tally the amount of salary lost + expenses that I must pay no matter what (COBRA, children medical bills, food, housing), that pretty much tallied up to a $30K loss. My wife and I were very well prepared financially in terms of savings. But no matter what, $30K are $30K. It hurts.
Being out of work can pretty much amount to losing between $8K to $10K a month if we really analyze the situation. 12 months out of work is not unrealistic, regardless of talent, so I shiver to think at the very concept.
And the worst thing is that unemployment can (and will come) regardless of performance. In the job I lost at the end of 2013, it was just someone in accounting that cancelled projects at the closing of the year. Nothing to do with performance.
Shit happens, even in software, even if we have mad skills. Good thing that I learned my lesson during the dot-com bubble.
I've been living by a formula: expect to be unemployed one-to-two months for every year of continuous employment, and plan for it.
Now, I'm planning to bump it to two-to-three months per every year of continuous employment. The older we get the more that we have to bump that ratio, specially if we decide to remain technical as opposed to transition into management.
56 Percent of US Developers Expect To Become Millionaires
I downloaded the study by Chef (which amounted to a 3-page PDF), and there was no breakdown of the sample population by age, race/ethnic make-up, gender, marital status, location, degree and primary/secondary software skills. So, one has to wonder how much of a self-selection bias took place in this so-called study.
For instance, I cannot see a way by which a sample population of single men in their late 20s working as developers (or founders) at start-ups in Silicon Valley will respond the questionnaire in a manner comparable to, say, a mixed gender sample population of developers in their mid-30s or 40s working at established companies out of, say, Austin.
Also, regarding age, someone starting up today should not find it impossible to become, literally, a millionaire as in "having earned a million" by the time of retirement. To effectively be a millionaire - meaning having net assets worth a million or more (at current purchasing power) counting inflation, that is another thing.
The thing that made me scratch my head the most is that 2/3 of the sampled population believed their profession to be recession-proof. That strikes me as naivete (or stupidity) of youth/inexperience/arrogance.
The software industry is not recession-proof. It is recession-resilient for those who actively cultivate their professional network.
But recession-proof? Not. A. Chance.
Either this study is seriously affected by the Dunning-Krugger Effect, or it is an exercise in intellectual self-pleasure, or somehow Chef managed to sample a population composed by truly elite multi-discipline engineers, owners of very hard-to-get skills (like building software for radar systems or something.)
Slashdot Mirror
What are you, 12 years old?
No. Just calling a spade a spade. What explanation can there be to mention that the "other guy" is/was the "ex-boyfriend" as a counter-argument? What relevant information does that elucidate? What is the point?
Passive-aggressively demonizing other people like that is as immature as it gets online,
Not as much as mentioning that the "other guy", the harasser, was "the ex-boyfriend" as if that explained things, without context with which to interpret that precious pearl of information.
short of doxxing to incite harassment.
If you say so, it must be so. See, if the shoe fits, wear it or see a podiatrist (or in this case, psychiatrist.)
I'm sorry that none of you like the correct use of English... Bloody Americans.
English is not my first language, so... you lose?
Experts Say Hitching a Ride In an Airliner's Wheel Well Is Not a Good Idea
http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120930201320/fairytail/images/3/30/You_don't_say.png
http://youtu.be/b6qyX1L8p_Q
Also, when it comes to handling all simple 404, there could be a browser extension that would redirect you to archive.org. People would be able to use that on existing content. It's what I'm already doing manually, only this would be faster.
By the way, I always thought that URIs were supposed to handle precisely this - that they were supposed to be unique, universally accessible identifiers for contents and resources - identifiers that, once assigned, wouldn't need to be changed to access the same contents or resources in the future. Oh, hell. Now we have to add extra layers on top of that?
Well, they are. Content does not have to have the same longevity or life-cycle as the URI that once pointed to it, though.
Say what you will, but the AC is correct about this being a risk that vanishes in an all-male workforce.
The risk doesn't vanish. It simply gets masked, just as one would mask if we have an all Caucasian (or X=whatever ethnic label of your choosing) workforce where racial problems vanish all of the sudden.
It's going to be hilarious when openly gay people join your workforce en mass.
What kind of message does that send?
That women shouldn't have to deal with harassment?
It tells the world that women just can't handle the same work environments that men can,
Men don't sexually harass men... usually. And most men do not sexually harass women either. It's just the perverted few who think it is women's fault for being unable (or unreasonably unwilling) to deal with their creepy world views.
It is the same argument that was made against Blacks from working shoulder to shoulder with Caucasians - they'd get harassed, and when wouldn't put up, there would be complains that they are not up to the task of dealing with "the realities of work" (read, "being a good boy.")
You are the problem.
Mirror, mirror. Who had the biggest problem with women of them all?
And women wonder why companies are so reluctant to hire them.
It is not "companies". Not even "some companies", but some men.
Having an all male workforce means not having to deal with headaches like this.
It also means fostering an environment where juvenile-minded males never grow up into reasonable, professional men, fostering a culture that eventually and surely will spawn a molester or sociopath.
Posting AC because you liberal pussies are going to clutch your pearls and mod me down into the dirt, even though deep down you know I'm right.
No, you are wrong. I know that deep down. Posting as myself because my gonads prevent me from posting like a coward.
What part of ex is hard to understand?
Indeed. I'd add that part is the same part creepy sociopaths do not get when they "misunderstand" a "no" for a "yes".
Anyone who says this:
The "other guy" being an ex boyfriend
is the type of person I would not want near me, friends, co-workers or relavites.
I am a systems administrator who works for a radiology department. First, I would like to say that I wouldn't want a call center tech reading my MRI no matter how adaptable he or she is.
It is a poor analogy, but I think I understand what the recruiter was trying to explain
And maybe he needs the help of a A+ English major so that he knows how to explain himself better </rimshot>
His English comment doesn't even make sense. The kid wanted to switch to economics.
Maybe he sucks at English comprehension (and the whole comment was some type of projection)?
Bloomberg is a hypocrite, not a hero. He's all for disarming the general populace since he has the money to live in a secure home and hire armed guards for personal protection. The rest of us don't have that luxury and must fend for ourselves.
If you "fend for yourself" with a gun, you're more likely to be murdered by it than to save the life of you or someone you love.
Citations please.
Never mind the chance your young child will blow off his head, or that of a friend.
That's what locks and safes are for. It's not rocket science and yet the hordes of idiots that live among the anti-gun crowd (and the idiots who own guns without a lock) seem too stupid to grasp this very simple concept.
It is a people problem. Studies have shown that the vast majority of first time murders already had extensive violent criminal records. Clearly the justice system is not doing these people or society justice, since there were ample opportunities to intervene before they took a human life.
15% of murders are committed by a domestic partner. 56% of murders are committed by friends or acquaintances. The notion that murders are committed against random people by some set of hardened, life-long criminals is not supported by data. Perhaps all the more so, given that convicted felons are generally prohibited from owning firearms.
Likewise, given that 65% of gun deaths (as distinguished from murders) are suicides, I have to say I consider it highly unlikely that the vast majority of gun violence is committed by people with extensive criminal records
There is data collected by the FBI and local state agencies if you'd like to check. For starters not all homicides are gun-related. Secondly, the question is not whether it is strangers murdering strangers, but whether 1) poverty and drug-related crimes/drug-related environments are fueling the bulk of homicides (and gun-related homicides in particular) and 2) the typical perpetrator has already a crime record.
The data I alluded, collected by various law enforcement agencies and 3rd party organizations/analysts points into that direction. African Americans and Hispanics (my community) are dis-proportionally represented in gun-related homicides. When you break down gun-related homicide by race, we find that among non-Hispanic Whites, the murder rates are comparable (slightly higher but still comparable) to those in Western Europe.
Furthermore, 80% of gun-related homicides are committed by hand guns, not the ZOMG assault weapons politicians like to ban. I cannot find the link to the FBI study where it showed the type of handguns used the most in homicides, but it clearly mentioned the majority of them were on the cheap end, 2nd-hand saturday night special type of hand guns, not the $500+ firearms the typical law-abiding gun-owner possess.
So, clearly, race and income are a factor. Since race and income are (still) tightly correlated in the US, we can generalize this by simply saying it is a class-related phenomenon. Add to the fact that drug-related crimes significantly affect African Americans (where there has been a marked breakdown in families and an increase in single-parent families), Hispanics and to a lesser extend Caucasians in the South due to the "meth" belt, we see a strong correlation with the war on drugs.
Now, I'm not saying we should not have tighter controls with firearms. I own firearms, and I conceal carry wherever it is legal. But I also acknowledge we should have much better ways to track who buys or sells what. Illegally acquired firearms and straw sales are a major factor in gun-related crime. So we have to deal with it.
But the primordial factors here are race/economics, poverty, even health ([a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2013/01/03/how-lead-caused-americas-violent-crime-epidemic/" target="new"]refer to lead poisoning as a possible cause in the spike of crime from the late 60's to the 80s[/a]). Most importantly, it is culture.
Fins and Swiss have significant %s of gun-ownership, and the Swiss can open carry, and yet you do not see the significant murder rates as in the US (though there are rates of spousal murder where alcohol is involved, but that is a universal.)
Honduras is the capital murder of the world, and although gun laws are flexible, most people simply do not own a piece legally (prices are out of reach to most - ownership is for the well-to-do). Poverty is rampant, the police is ill-equipped to deal with gang/drug related violence, and the country lacks institutions to deal with recidivism.
Nicaragua, adjacent to Honduras is the poorer of the two, with gun laws and legal private own
Snowden to Critics: Questioning Putin Has Opened Conversation About Surveillance
If he really wanted to ask questions about freedoms, he should have asked about the LGBT rights in Russia or Chechens' right for self-determination. In the US, asking about surveillance violations is the right question to ask because, by and large, it is one of the most pressing issues. In Russia, that ain't.
The proper question to ask when it comes to freedom is always the one concerning the greatest, most infamous violations.
How do you know this was initiated by the lawyers?
Do you really think their lawyers can change the TOS without first getting approval from the management?
Finally, someone that gets it.
The poor people would still be starving and living in squalor like they do now?
You are being facetious and spiteful. Yes, there are still hundred of millions of poor in India, but also, many hundred of millions have been lifted out of poverty because of the emergent tech/service industry.
In 2003-2004, the % of population in India living below the poverty line was over 37%. A decade later (meaning now), it is at 21%. This is a 56.75% drop in extreme poverty in a decade. Not shabby if you ask me. And if you consider that the population % living under poverty was almost 60% in the 1950s, then in 6 decades, poverty %s have been reduced by 2/3. Again, not shabby.
That there are still significant problems, like malnutrition, and a still vulnerable low-to-middle class? Of course. But to pretend or dismiss the significant advances that country has made just because they still have a lot to fix, that's disingenuous. It is equally disingenuous to pretend India made a fundamental mistake in investing in tech and education simply because that did not prove a 100% failure-free solution to all the significant problems the country had (and still has.)
postgress or db2
The term "Oracle" is now more than the database. It is a fully-integrated business stack - BPM, OSB, Coherence, WebLogic, ADF, etc, etc, etc.
I mean, seriously, this is/was about a health care site, and people think the Oracle's technology involved in it for good or bad) was just on the database part?????? W. T. F? Whether that is good or not, that's another thing, and an unimportant one because if a system is designed like crap, it won't matter what stack (proprietary or not) you use. It will be crap.
You could drop Oracle on a thousand carrot diamond and they'd still turn it into a steaming pile of shit. It's Oracle, it's what they do best.
You are being subjective.
Dear You,
Please butt out of our domestic politics. It's none of your goddamn business, and yet foreign politicians know more about state-level politics in America than they do their own provinces.
As one American to another - STFU. Perhaps you are right in that other people should stick their noses in our internal affairs. But that does not change the truth of what the OP said (Dems and GOPers are pretty much right wing.)
That you chose to enforce the former instead of acknowledge the later, that is intellectually disingenuous to say the least. To kill the messenger is not supposed to be the American way.
In a discussion about ID/creation, how could you not?
LOL. You got me. I have nothing of a come-back :)
I wouldn't use the Genesis as a point of reference.
"Capable of keep going under cold or heat in ways most animals would die"
Can't let you get away with that. My dog can go out when its below freezing quite happily. I need 2 layers of clothing plus a coat.
That would be a fine counter-argument if I had said that we were capable of keep going under cold or heat in ways all animals would die.. But I didn't, so...
I mean, c'mon. The context is clear, beasts of burden, cattle, foodstuff and prey, most of the stuff we compare against from the POV of being (or close to being) apex predators. Of course there are animals with better resistance to certain temperatures. Huskies and Polar bears >> us in the cold. Camels >> us in desert-like conditions.
But when you take the range of environments we were able to adapt since primitive times as a context, and we take the animals we domesticated and/or hunted/displaced, the generalization (from where I utilized the word "most animals") still stands.
As for heat, yes , we're slightly better adapted due to being able to sweat but that comes with a price - huge water consumption. Not very useful in a desert. Mr Camel solved the problem far better.
"We can survive bacteria, viruses and parasites and wounds"
So can most animals otherwise the most complex life would still be a sponge. And to use my dog as an example again - he can happily drink water from streams and puddles that would put me on the toilet for 2 days.
Don't get me wrong, I don't believe in ID anymore than anyone with an IQ greater than their shoe size, but as far as comparisons to other animals goes, the human body in the raw is pretty feeble. Even compared to our nearest cousin chimpanzees we're pretty hopeless physically - our muscles and bones are much weaker and they can survive falls from heights that would easily kill a human.
GoPro Project Claims Technology Is Making People Lose Empathy For Homeless
They can only make that claim if they have hard data that shows people in the past being more emphatic towards others. Without that, the claim is bogus.
There has always been compassionate people, before and now. And there has always been nihilistic, selfish people, before and now. Technology has nothing to do with it.
Switching From Sitting To Standing At Your Desk
I started doing that a few weeks ago, and the benefits have been enormous. My setup is nothing fancy, just some props and books to elevate my keyboard and trackball, like this:
http://bit.ly/1j6DFbN
I got inspired by Marco Arment's DYI soda-can standing desk. I was struggling for a while thinking "what should I buy, how can do this". Arment's solution is so simple that inspired me to use whatever I had on my desk to put together a solution.
I'm thinking to build something similar with aluminum cans. But I do not drink soda, only beer, and I do not know if a standing desk made out of beer cans would be corporate appropriate :)
Anyways, my sciatica is not bothering me that much anymore since I started working standing. Once in a while I sit down (and I always sit down when I have to read a paper or report.) But I do most of my coding standing. The key part for me was to get a trackball for my set-up, to save elevated real-state.
In addition to the health benefits, I think coding standing helps me focus better. Entirely subjective of course.
Later, I plan to build a wood standing desk for my 5-year old daughter. I hope I can get her into the habit of doing more of her homework standing than sitting.
Even completely small things are unhealthy for the human body. The human body is absolute garbage, and it's yet more proof that "intelligent design" never happened.
I don't believe in intelligent design either, but you are reaching waaaay too far up your rear when building criticism against ID. Saying the human body is absolute garbage is as dumb as saying God created the world in 7 days.
A person can buy a Maserati, but i said person doesn't change the oil and let water and particulate go into the gas tank, the car will turn into garbage. The car wasn't garbage. The owner was a careless fool at best (and a f*tard at worst.)
Human bodies are actually quite resilient, tuned by evolution to be cursorial predators. Capable of keep going under cold or heat in ways most animals would die. And that was already a fact before we eve invented clothing. Put the mind next to the body (which is what makes us human) then we have clothing, and a whole new set of capabilities emerge. There are plenty of historical footnotes of soldiers going on long after their horses, donkeys and oxen died of exposure.
We can survive bacteria, viruses and parasites and wounds. We die of infections beyond a certain magnitude, similarly to most other Eukaryote organisms. If our bodies are garbage, so are the bodies of all Eukaryote organisms. I guess the only Eukaryote whose body is not garbage is Superman, but he is an illegal alien from Krypton so he doesn't matter.
I've been unemployed three times in the last 15 years. Once during the dot-com bust (on and off for almost a year). Then in 2008 (6 days right before my first daughter was born) for almost 4 months, and then just recently (end of the year 2013) for three months.
I cannot imagine how bad it is to be unemployed longer than that, and I consider myself lucky that it was just a few months. But even if it is a few months, as you said, it is stuff like COBRA and other eventualities that get you.
On my last unemployment event, when I tally the amount of salary lost + expenses that I must pay no matter what (COBRA, children medical bills, food, housing), that pretty much tallied up to a $30K loss. My wife and I were very well prepared financially in terms of savings. But no matter what, $30K are $30K. It hurts.
Being out of work can pretty much amount to losing between $8K to $10K a month if we really analyze the situation. 12 months out of work is not unrealistic, regardless of talent, so I shiver to think at the very concept.
And the worst thing is that unemployment can (and will come) regardless of performance. In the job I lost at the end of 2013, it was just someone in accounting that cancelled projects at the closing of the year. Nothing to do with performance.
Shit happens, even in software, even if we have mad skills. Good thing that I learned my lesson during the dot-com bubble.
I've been living by a formula: expect to be unemployed one-to-two months for every year of continuous employment, and plan for it.
Now, I'm planning to bump it to two-to-three months per every year of continuous employment. The older we get the more that we have to bump that ratio, specially if we decide to remain technical as opposed to transition into management.
56 Percent of US Developers Expect To Become Millionaires
I downloaded the study by Chef (which amounted to a 3-page PDF), and there was no breakdown of the sample population by age, race/ethnic make-up, gender, marital status, location, degree and primary/secondary software skills. So, one has to wonder how much of a self-selection bias took place in this so-called study.
For instance, I cannot see a way by which a sample population of single men in their late 20s working as developers (or founders) at start-ups in Silicon Valley will respond the questionnaire in a manner comparable to, say, a mixed gender sample population of developers in their mid-30s or 40s working at established companies out of, say, Austin.
Also, regarding age, someone starting up today should not find it impossible to become, literally, a millionaire as in "having earned a million" by the time of retirement. To effectively be a millionaire - meaning having net assets worth a million or more (at current purchasing power) counting inflation, that is another thing.
The thing that made me scratch my head the most is that 2/3 of the sampled population believed their profession to be recession-proof. That strikes me as naivete (or stupidity) of youth/inexperience/arrogance.
The software industry is not recession-proof. It is recession-resilient for those who actively cultivate their professional network.
But recession-proof? Not. A. Chance.
Either this study is seriously affected by the Dunning-Krugger Effect, or it is an exercise in intellectual self-pleasure, or somehow Chef managed to sample a population composed by truly elite multi-discipline engineers, owners of very hard-to-get skills (like building software for radar systems or something.)