Speak for yourself. There are jobs like that out there, but the onus is on "you" (the generic "you") to develop a career that avoids such situations. If you manage your career wisely, such jobs, while unavoidable, they become the exception rather than the norm.
Mandatory unemployment will cure your burnout.
Even during the dot-com bubble, if you really have (or had) to continuously suck it up like that to bad working conditions to avoid unemployment, in the field of software to boot, you are doing something wrong with your career buddy.
Is that line of communication open enough for you yet?
When that happens, you leave. If you are paying attention to your career, you have a professional network that you can count on. You regularly scout to see what options you have. You have been smelling something afoul at work for quite sometime (again, if you are paying attention) so that kind of "line of communication" does not catch you with your pants down unprepared.
So, unless you are managing your career like a drone going throw the employment options, facing that kind of "line of communication" is a non-issue because, at worst, you already have a bunch of options and can walk away without an unreasonable fear of unemployment, and, at best, you walked out before you even got to that point.
Good relationship between manager and slave?
Put down the victimhood kool aid. There is no manager-slave relation unless you are dumb enough to allow yourself to fall on one. There are good managers and bad managers just as there are good developers and bad developers. If you are a good developer, YOU CAN PROACTIVELY find good managers to work with.
What universe do you think you live in?
Certainly not in the same universe you live in, that's for sure.
You saying it does not make it so. I'm not saying that he is not full of it, but you simply do not know and his/her explanation of not giving details is as good as your own word in the realm of internet forums. If you want to assume that, then that's your right, but don't pretend to assume that your assumption is a (probable or absolute) fact.
There were a couple of stories by ex-googlers indicating some serious systemic problems in their work environment and culture (no pun intended but just google it). It is not all roses and bunnies in a geek bliss reaching nerdvana.
It is not to say it is a bad company or a profitable one. But it does have some serious issues in the way it operates that, if left unattended (and that is a big if), the will eventually come back to haunt the company in the typical bizness-101-what-not-to-do-list fashion.
Making money now doesn't mean making money in the future. Look at RIM for how fast things can change.
Comparing Google to RIM is a bit of a argumentative stretch. Google is making money now, in its "present". RIM was making money on it's "present". The latter flopped because of a variety of reasons, none of them present in Google's modus operandi. The allegorical causal-relation does not necessarily follow.
More like a mandate preventing any information about Petraus, Benghazi, or IRS scandals from leaking to the press until after an election. Or fudging unemployment numbers because you got your ass handed to you in the first debate. Or neglecting to even start designing healthcare.gov before the election because you know it's going to prove controversial, and then act surprised when you couldn't deliver in 10 months...
"A premier science museum in North Carolina has sparked controversy by refusing to show an hour long film about climate change and rising sea levels and 'mocks North Carolina politicians'. The museum may be in a bit of a delicate position because residents of a state don't enjoy having their state made fun of."
Yeah, unless you're in one of the self-deprecating states like Minnesota where we love to mock ourselves (the movie Fargo, A Prairie Home Companion, How to Talk Minnesotan, etc). Being able to handle criticism instead of censoring it sounds like something North Cackalacky needs to work on.
That's one awesome thing about Minnesotans. The rest of the country, in particular places like NC should do well to learn from that.
Didn't you just tell him not to call people names if you want to be treated with respect? I haven't seen the film, but it is entirely possible that it runs afoul of this same advice.
He didn't call anyone names. He said that something proposed (in this case, legislation) is stupid. Otherwise intelligent people can (and do) make stupid decisions. Assuming that the film does run afoul of the same advice, it is still Academia's place to put it forward so that it is up to debate on the state and taxpayers' dime. That's what state-sponsored academic institutions in the free world are supposed to do.
"A premier science museum in North Carolina has sparked controversy by refusing to show an hour long film about climate change and rising sea levels and 'mocks North Carolina politicians'. The museum may be in a bit of a delicate position because residents of a state don't enjoy having their state made fun of."
In that case, so much for an academic center's freedom to purport controversy and satire independent of the state's political POVs and the current temperament of the plebe.
You bold that part out as if that was a valid reason for the museum to decline the exhibition of said film. How much more stupid could that statement get? You are equating the state with the residents whereas I can assure you a substantial number of NC's residents would disagree with you.
And if the state, and academia for that matter, were completely subject to whatever the popular mood might be (which in this case, your statement is completely debatable to begin with), then we would still be living with segregation laws.
The whole point of state-sponsored academic institutions in the developed free world is to present information, examine controversy, and why not, satirize and challenge the status quo independently of what state officials, and even residents think.
I could see how the Nazis sponsored Aryan science as opposed to "corrupted Jewish thinking" proposed by the likes of Einstein.
I could understand Soviet academies forced to abandon research deemed counter-revolutionary which brought us stuff like Lynsenkoism... and even then the Soviets were wise enough to give Soviet intelligentsia a great degree of freedom.
But to whiff the smell of such thinking in a developed, free/capitalist country, in America of all places, man, that is a sad day for humanity.
I assume that he was simply unused to being on his feet all day or maybe overweight or has badly fitting shoes.
Or maybe...like many if not the vast majority of warehouses, they have hard concrete floors, which are brutal on the feet. The husband of one of my co-workers' works at Home Depot with the concrete floor, he is slim and in good shape, and has tried every orthopedic shoe solution available and still it's problematic. And I know for me personally, I can walk or hike for hours on end without a problem, but more than 30 minutes in a Home Depot or Costco on the concrete floors and my feet and calves are aching.
I worked at the Home Depot for two years, and I never got what you described. I never met one HD worker who complained about chronic foot pain due to hard concrete floors. I trust this observation because we, Home Depot workers always complained about other physical things: like dust from the Building Materials and Flooring departments. Back pains (the company gave us elastic back braces to help with lifting heavy stuff). Incredibly rude customers. Getting our fingers smashed when carrying tiles or concrete blocks or whatever.
We came in all shapes and sizes, male and female. We even had a joke, that whenever we finished our day, we would have been "Home Depot'ed" (beat up to crap by work.) But I never heard people complaining about chronic foot pain from walking 8+ hours on the concrete floor.
I'm not saying that what you describe is false. But it is not something that I ever experienced, or witnessed, when I worked at a Home Depot store.
As reproducible as you configure it to be. Fundamentally no different from running Mathematica (or a similar package) on a Beowulf cluster or in any assortment of machinery.
"I'm research the long-term consistency and reproducibility of math results in the cloud and have questions about floating point calculations. For example, say I create a virtual OS instance on a cloud provider (doesn't matter which one) and install Mathematica to run a precise calculation. Mathematica generates the result based on the combination of software version, operating system, hypervisor, firmware and hardware that are running at that time
And configuration, and choice of numeric data types, and choices of operators (.ie. division vs multiplication).
In the cloud, hardware, firmware and hypervisors are invisible to the users but could still impact the implementation/operation of floating point math.
Say I archive the virutal instance and in 5 or 10 years I fire it up on another cloud provider and run the same calculation. What's the likelihood that the results would be the same? What can be done to adjust for this? Currently, I know people who 'archive' hardware just for the purpose of ensuring reproducibility and I'm wondering how this tranlates to the world of cloud and virtualization across multiple hardware types.
I doubt anyone is making such type of research. And the only way to ensure replicability of results is by strictly using fixed-precision numeric data types (instead of relying on floating point types.)
No. Ada begins iterating wherever you tell it to. You can index your arrays from -100 to 0 if you like.
Its a more useful language that way.
It is quite true though that the 0-based thing is entirely an artifact of C (and of course languages that cribbed its syntax). Thinking that's a feature of programming is a sure sign of a inexperienced programmer.
I'm ambivalent towards that feeling. I do prefer languages like Ada that allows you to define logically sound, problem-specific index ranges (plus, what is not to love about Ada's strong-as-nails range checking capabilities, but I digress here, I know.)
But for better or for worse (I tend to think the later), C-like syntax with zero-base-indexing is pretty much the de-facto way of doing things in the programming world, and it is one of the first things programming students struggle with. It is not brain-twisting, but it is certainly not the normal mode of thinking for the uninitiated.
So it has become a feature of programming in general. Whether that is a good or a bad feature, that is a type of value judgement that I rather not do since those rarely lead to anything of substantial constructive value for the workings of everyday things.
> I start counting at zero. "I have zero bottles of Mt. Dew, it is time to go to the store."
In that instance, you're counting down the number of bottles left. And zero is the value at which you *stop* counting.
Or you are counting from a point where you can only count up (.ie. I inherited a back-log of bugs of which zero have been fixed). Zero is the value at which you *start* counting and you stop when the number of fixed bugs equals the total # of bugs in your back-log.
We can dice it anyway we want, counting is counting, independent of reference, or direction.
Bigelow is applying to the Federal Aviation Administration's Office of Commercial Space Transportation to amend a 1967 international agreement on the moon so that a system of private property rights can be established there.
Too early. And if ownership is to be given, let it be to nations in terms of sovereign rights (or leases), not private individuals. Then those nations can lease exploitation/leasing rights to individuals and corporations.
The Moon is humanity's patrimony. Individuals and private entities must not have ownership right on the moon just in the same way we do with Antarctica. It is simply just too early. Here be dragons.
I would much prefer private entities explore the concept of asteroid mining and space station building. Once that is done, and it is done for a while, maybe, just maybe we can talk about private property rights on the Moon.
Could have probably said something similar about airplane travel a hundred years ago.
This. And that was also certainly the same concern with trans-oceanic exploration. Shit, I sure that Homo Erectus had the same argument
Grok: Be careful.
Ung: What?
Grok: This taming fire business, you are going to burn yourself. I don't see the ROI considering the risks. Just munch the raw bone marrow. Much safer that way.
With what Texas is doing to textbooks for schools, they don't deserve it.
Also, in the states, there is this trend to not fund science that does not produce an immediately marketable product.
Don't pingeonhole everything in Texas. They have decent universities and a strong tech industry. Blame it on the parochial minds voting in the red districts for demanding Creationism and shit to be put in the text books. You simply do not put Dallas, Austin or Houston in the same category as some backwater county the voting majority thinks evolution is the work of the devil.
Pragmatism please. If it makes financial and scientific sense to build in in Texas, let it be. We have enough knee-jerking appeals to emotion already.
I don't have to 'know the true dogma' to call out a probable liar. If you're not a liar, the line you used has been widely employed by liars, making it a self-defeating thing to say.
See Seminar Caller.
So, let me see, either I'm a probable liar (as you claimed now), or I'm a definite leftist (as you originally stated.) Either way you have not given any proof of it other than making the claim (as Colbert once said "I cannot prove it, but I can say it.")
And you do need to know the "dogma", for you are using something to measure my alleged leftiness (and/or ability to lie.)
the line you used has been widely employed by liars, making it a self-defeating thing to say. See Seminar Caller. [wikipedia.org]
And this is a perfect example of circular reasoning and guilt-by-association. You took a general form of speech (yes, general) that I happen to use, and because it matched something described in wikipedia, and voila, guilty!!!
What's next, a "No True Scottsman" claim? I'm not going to debate you on whether I'm a liar or a leftie or a false-RINO, or, I dunno, a Klingon. Whatever the fuck gives you comfort and mental stability in that political corner of yours.
You're not a RINO, you're a leftist. Anyone who makes claim to being a disillusioned 'life-long republican' is likely full of sh*t, especially if such claim follows a litany of cherry-picked, overblown complaints straight out of the Alinsky playbook for mocking opponents.
Typical Marxist-like response. Only you know the true dogma. All hail the fuck out of you.
Is that actually a constitutional thing? Is there anywhere in the constitution that it says a government institution *must* provide life-saving medical care, or is that just part of societally-accepted ethics?
Societally-accepted ethics can (and will) add/remove/change the constitution. Also, a lot of the constitution has been left to the interpretation of social mores through the ages: think about what "all men are created equal" meant through the different interpretations given since the constitution was written, and what "unalienable Rights", "Life", "Liberty" and "Pursuit of Happiness" have stood for many people through time.
Unless every single possible contingency is written, shit will always be open to socially-accepted/ethical interpretation.
This. This sums up the big problem the ACA is trying to fix and why the individual mandate is important. The majority of the people in the US are just too fucking stupid or steeped in partisan politics to understand it.
Hospitals already can't deny services in an emergency. The ACA and individual mandate only serve to try and limit the hospital's financial loss; it has absolutely nothing to do with the patient.
It is an entirely political question related to the boundary of Government. Do you want to force young, healthy people to have coverage to pay the lion's share for everyone else, or do you allow individuals to take responsibility for the choices they make and the risks they take by not having insurance?
False dichotomy. Try this. Do you want people with pre-existing conditions to be excluded from any type of insurance, or do you force health insurance to give them coverage (passing the amortized cost to the rest of the people w/o pre-existing conditions.) In other words, do we do something about that, or do we live by a "I got mine, fuck you very much" philosophy?
It is interesting (and sad) how people paint every narrative in terms of absolute personal choices. Where are the personal choices in having a pre-existing condition? Over 50% of bankruptcies in the states are related to medical bills. How do we impute "personal choice" when people fall through the economic ranks due to factors predominantly out of their control (globalization comes to mind) and have to make do with zero health insurance (or with crappy money pits like Vista health care plans)?
This is no different from the leftie loonie toons who paint everything in terms of the big, fat, lazy rich man exploiting the hapless but hard working and ethical little man. The same ideological bullshit that just happens to sit on the other side of the political spectrum.
Reality sits somewhere in the middle and solutions requires compromise from everybody involved. Painting everything in terms of either class struggle or personal choices is just a way to pampering their ideological pets over actually giving a shit about their compatriots and their nation.
Is the government in the business of prop-ing businesses up? Funny for most how that answer changes when the subject is large banking institutions.
Yes. The economy is a national strategic asset (oh yes, even in a capitalist economy, this is a truth.) Also, you are asking the wrong question. A more appropriate question to ask is "do the current actions (or in-actions) taken by the government with respect to X or Y line of business provide a positive (or negative) net effect on the economy?"
You mean the party that kept sending bills to the senate while the Dems said only "NO, NO, NO! We'd rather have a mandated shutdown!"?
You mean
bills meant to defund or stop the implementation of something that is already a law?
The Party that right now is blocking the LGBT protection bill in the House?
The party who still cannot comprehend why *WE* fucking loss elections in Virginia????
Who still does not get why the Tealiban lost just a couple of days ago in Alabama????
The party who still caters to the likes who think in terms of "legitimate rape"???
The party who still has prominent members who cannot bring themselves to say Obama is a US-born citizen?
The party who still caters to the likes who think everyone that voted Democrat is a moocher looking for a hand-out?
That party you mean???
This is not to say the Dems are blameless, but for fuck's sake, stop saying the GOP is the party that keeps sending bills to the senate. That's fucking bullshit, and you know it.
Truly yours, a life-long Republican tired of seeing a sea of stupid beasts more interested in destruction, confederate-flag waving, secession, creationism, birtherism, social-medieval conservatism-barbarism and just blatant mental anachronisms than on making things work with the other half of the population who does not agree with everything they say...
... (or maybe I'm just a RINO according to the ideological purists that more and more resemble the Khmer Rouge in their fight for doctrine's purity. I can live with that label.)
It does not have to be against the law to criticize your employer for your employer to fire you over it. Your employer can fire you for just about any reason they like. Government as employer? Might take longer, but amass enough paper against you and eventually you go away. However, if your employer is the government you could easily be subject to jail and fines if you say the wrong things in the course of your criticism (not saying that applies in this case).
In this particular case of Joseph, yes, his position required a respectable public image. But I'm talking more about grunts, people not in the public eye. Taking the Pepsi example, I mean, do you really think that'd stand up in a court if the fired employee made a huge stink over it? There are laws against discrimination in hiring/firing practices. Those are all based on tangible qualities, such as age, race, gender, sexual orientation.. but then we get to.. religion. That's protected too. And that's an opinion, a preference.
An opinion is also a tangible quality. The opinion that all people are created equal is one that should never get someone fired, for example. Certainly a religion is an opinion and a preference as much as it is a preference to have a particular political POV. Just as it is unconscionable to fire someone from being, say, Republican, Democrat, independent or whatever, it should also be unconscionable to fire someone for choosing to profess a faith.
Horrendous crimes have been committed against people for exercising a right to an opinion or preference (specially one so closely tied to a person's upbringing or culture.) The path down that road starts when such opinions are not conferred equal protection.
Slashdot Mirror
Question a deadline?! You're fired!!
Speak for yourself. There are jobs like that out there, but the onus is on "you" (the generic "you") to develop a career that avoids such situations. If you manage your career wisely, such jobs, while unavoidable, they become the exception rather than the norm.
Mandatory unemployment will cure your burnout.
Even during the dot-com bubble, if you really have (or had) to continuously suck it up like that to bad working conditions to avoid unemployment, in the field of software to boot, you are doing something wrong with your career buddy.
Is that line of communication open enough for you yet?
When that happens, you leave. If you are paying attention to your career, you have a professional network that you can count on. You regularly scout to see what options you have. You have been smelling something afoul at work for quite sometime (again, if you are paying attention) so that kind of "line of communication" does not catch you with your pants down unprepared.
So, unless you are managing your career like a drone going throw the employment options, facing that kind of "line of communication" is a non-issue because, at worst, you already have a bunch of options and can walk away without an unreasonable fear of unemployment, and, at best, you walked out before you even got to that point.
Good relationship between manager and slave?
Put down the victimhood kool aid. There is no manager-slave relation unless you are dumb enough to allow yourself to fall on one. There are good managers and bad managers just as there are good developers and bad developers. If you are a good developer, YOU CAN PROACTIVELY find good managers to work with.
What universe do you think you live in?
Certainly not in the same universe you live in, that's for sure.
So, full of shit it is.
You saying it does not make it so. I'm not saying that he is not full of it, but you simply do not know and his/her explanation of not giving details is as good as your own word in the realm of internet forums. If you want to assume that, then that's your right, but don't pretend to assume that your assumption is a (probable or absolute) fact.
There were a couple of stories by ex-googlers indicating some serious systemic problems in their work environment and culture (no pun intended but just google it). It is not all roses and bunnies in a geek bliss reaching nerdvana.
It is not to say it is a bad company or a profitable one. But it does have some serious issues in the way it operates that, if left unattended (and that is a big if), the will eventually come back to haunt the company in the typical bizness-101-what-not-to-do-list fashion.
Making money now doesn't mean making money in the future. Look at RIM for how fast things can change.
Comparing Google to RIM is a bit of a argumentative stretch. Google is making money now, in its "present". RIM was making money on it's "present". The latter flopped because of a variety of reasons, none of them present in Google's modus operandi. The allegorical causal-relation does not necessarily follow.
It's a science museum, not an 'academic institution'.
Because the difference is so fundamental </yougottabekiddingme>
More like a mandate preventing any information about Petraus, Benghazi, or IRS scandals from leaking to the press until after an election. Or fudging unemployment numbers because you got your ass handed to you in the first debate. Or neglecting to even start designing healthcare.gov before the election because you know it's going to prove controversial, and then act surprised when you couldn't deliver in 10 months...
Nice non sequitur marinated in red herring sauce.
"A premier science museum in North Carolina has sparked controversy by refusing to show an hour long film about climate change and rising sea levels and 'mocks North Carolina politicians'. The museum may be in a bit of a delicate position because residents of a state don't enjoy having their state made fun of."
Yeah, unless you're in one of the self-deprecating states like Minnesota where we love to mock ourselves (the movie Fargo, A Prairie Home Companion, How to Talk Minnesotan, etc). Being able to handle criticism instead of censoring it sounds like something North Cackalacky needs to work on.
That's one awesome thing about Minnesotans. The rest of the country, in particular places like NC should do well to learn from that.
Didn't you just tell him not to call people names if you want to be treated with respect? I haven't seen the film, but it is entirely possible that it runs afoul of this same advice.
He didn't call anyone names. He said that something proposed (in this case, legislation) is stupid. Otherwise intelligent people can (and do) make stupid decisions. Assuming that the film does run afoul of the same advice, it is still Academia's place to put it forward so that it is up to debate on the state and taxpayers' dime. That's what state-sponsored academic institutions in the free world are supposed to do.
"A premier science museum in North Carolina has sparked controversy by refusing to show an hour long film about climate change and rising sea levels and 'mocks North Carolina politicians'. The museum may be in a bit of a delicate position because residents of a state don't enjoy having their state made fun of."
In that case, so much for an academic center's freedom to purport controversy and satire independent of the state's political POVs and the current temperament of the plebe.
You bold that part out as if that was a valid reason for the museum to decline the exhibition of said film. How much more stupid could that statement get? You are equating the state with the residents whereas I can assure you a substantial number of NC's residents would disagree with you.
And if the state, and academia for that matter, were completely subject to whatever the popular mood might be (which in this case, your statement is completely debatable to begin with), then we would still be living with segregation laws.
The whole point of state-sponsored academic institutions in the developed free world is to present information, examine controversy, and why not, satirize and challenge the status quo independently of what state officials, and even residents think.
I could see how the Nazis sponsored Aryan science as opposed to "corrupted Jewish thinking" proposed by the likes of Einstein.
I could understand Soviet academies forced to abandon research deemed counter-revolutionary which brought us stuff like Lynsenkoism... and even then the Soviets were wise enough to give Soviet intelligentsia a great degree of freedom.
But to whiff the smell of such thinking in a developed, free/capitalist country, in America of all places, man, that is a sad day for humanity.
I assume that he was simply unused to being on his feet all day or maybe overweight or has badly fitting shoes.
Or maybe...like many if not the vast majority of warehouses, they have hard concrete floors, which are brutal on the feet. The husband of one of my co-workers' works at Home Depot with the concrete floor, he is slim and in good shape, and has tried every orthopedic shoe solution available and still it's problematic. And I know for me personally, I can walk or hike for hours on end without a problem, but more than 30 minutes in a Home Depot or Costco on the concrete floors and my feet and calves are aching.
I worked at the Home Depot for two years, and I never got what you described. I never met one HD worker who complained about chronic foot pain due to hard concrete floors. I trust this observation because we, Home Depot workers always complained about other physical things: like dust from the Building Materials and Flooring departments. Back pains (the company gave us elastic back braces to help with lifting heavy stuff). Incredibly rude customers. Getting our fingers smashed when carrying tiles or concrete blocks or whatever.
We came in all shapes and sizes, male and female. We even had a joke, that whenever we finished our day, we would have been "Home Depot'ed" (beat up to crap by work.) But I never heard people complaining about chronic foot pain from walking 8+ hours on the concrete floor.
I'm not saying that what you describe is false. But it is not something that I ever experienced, or witnessed, when I worked at a Home Depot store.
How Reproducible Is Arithmetic In the Cloud?
As reproducible as you configure it to be. Fundamentally no different from running Mathematica (or a similar package) on a Beowulf cluster or in any assortment of machinery.
"I'm research the long-term consistency and reproducibility of math results in the cloud and have questions about floating point calculations. For example, say I create a virtual OS instance on a cloud provider (doesn't matter which one) and install Mathematica to run a precise calculation. Mathematica generates the result based on the combination of software version, operating system, hypervisor, firmware and hardware that are running at that time
And configuration, and choice of numeric data types, and choices of operators (.ie. division vs multiplication).
In the cloud, hardware, firmware and hypervisors are invisible to the users but could still impact the implementation/operation of floating point math. Say I archive the virutal instance and in 5 or 10 years I fire it up on another cloud provider and run the same calculation. What's the likelihood that the results would be the same? What can be done to adjust for this? Currently, I know people who 'archive' hardware just for the purpose of ensuring reproducibility and I'm wondering how this tranlates to the world of cloud and virtualization across multiple hardware types.
I doubt anyone is making such type of research. And the only way to ensure replicability of results is by strictly using fixed-precision numeric data types (instead of relying on floating point types.)
If you've ever tried to navigate using a smartphone while cycling you'll know full well that you took your life in your hands.
Which is one people with common sense stop and check the maps, whereas stupid people looking for a Darwin award do not.
What's needed is a way that you can get directions from your smartphone without having to lose your focus and possibly your life
No, what's needed is to stop and look at the map. Common sense >> gadgetry.
and Hammerhead Navigation have one of the most interesting answers I've seen.
Not as interesting as, I dunno, stop and look at the map. Fucking revolutionary, I know!
No. Ada begins iterating wherever you tell it to. You can index your arrays from -100 to 0 if you like.
Its a more useful language that way.
It is quite true though that the 0-based thing is entirely an artifact of C (and of course languages that cribbed its syntax). Thinking that's a feature of programming is a sure sign of a inexperienced programmer.
I'm ambivalent towards that feeling. I do prefer languages like Ada that allows you to define logically sound, problem-specific index ranges (plus, what is not to love about Ada's strong-as-nails range checking capabilities, but I digress here, I know.)
But for better or for worse (I tend to think the later), C-like syntax with zero-base-indexing is pretty much the de-facto way of doing things in the programming world, and it is one of the first things programming students struggle with. It is not brain-twisting, but it is certainly not the normal mode of thinking for the uninitiated.
So it has become a feature of programming in general. Whether that is a good or a bad feature, that is a type of value judgement that I rather not do since those rarely lead to anything of substantial constructive value for the workings of everyday things.
> I start counting at zero. "I have zero bottles of Mt. Dew, it is time to go to the store." In that instance, you're counting down the number of bottles left. And zero is the value at which you *stop* counting.
Or you are counting from a point where you can only count up (.ie. I inherited a back-log of bugs of which zero have been fixed). Zero is the value at which you *start* counting and you stop when the number of fixed bugs equals the total # of bugs in your back-log.
We can dice it anyway we want, counting is counting, independent of reference, or direction.
Bigelow is applying to the Federal Aviation Administration's Office of Commercial Space Transportation to amend a 1967 international agreement on the moon so that a system of private property rights can be established there.
Too early. And if ownership is to be given, let it be to nations in terms of sovereign rights (or leases), not private individuals. Then those nations can lease exploitation/leasing rights to individuals and corporations.
The Moon is humanity's patrimony. Individuals and private entities must not have ownership right on the moon just in the same way we do with Antarctica. It is simply just too early. Here be dragons.
I would much prefer private entities explore the concept of asteroid mining and space station building. Once that is done, and it is done for a while, maybe, just maybe we can talk about private property rights on the Moon.
Could have probably said something similar about airplane travel a hundred years ago.
This. And that was also certainly the same concern with trans-oceanic exploration. Shit, I sure that Homo Erectus had the same argument
Grok: Be careful.
Ung: What?
Grok: This taming fire business, you are going to burn yourself. I don't see the ROI considering the risks. Just munch the raw bone marrow. Much safer that way.
With what Texas is doing to textbooks for schools, they don't deserve it.
Also, in the states, there is this trend to not fund science that does not produce an immediately marketable product.
Don't pingeonhole everything in Texas. They have decent universities and a strong tech industry. Blame it on the parochial minds voting in the red districts for demanding Creationism and shit to be put in the text books. You simply do not put Dallas, Austin or Houston in the same category as some backwater county the voting majority thinks evolution is the work of the devil.
Pragmatism please. If it makes financial and scientific sense to build in in Texas, let it be. We have enough knee-jerking appeals to emotion already.
I don't have to 'know the true dogma' to call out a probable liar. If you're not a liar, the line you used has been widely employed by liars, making it a self-defeating thing to say. See Seminar Caller.
So, let me see, either I'm a probable liar (as you claimed now), or I'm a definite leftist (as you originally stated.) Either way you have not given any proof of it other than making the claim (as Colbert once said "I cannot prove it, but I can say it.")
And you do need to know the "dogma", for you are using something to measure my alleged leftiness (and/or ability to lie.)
the line you used has been widely employed by liars, making it a self-defeating thing to say. See Seminar Caller. [wikipedia.org]
And this is a perfect example of circular reasoning and guilt-by-association. You took a general form of speech (yes, general) that I happen to use, and because it matched something described in wikipedia, and voila, guilty!!!
What's next, a "No True Scottsman" claim? I'm not going to debate you on whether I'm a liar or a leftie or a false-RINO, or, I dunno, a Klingon. Whatever the fuck gives you comfort and mental stability in that political corner of yours.
You're not a RINO, you're a leftist. Anyone who makes claim to being a disillusioned 'life-long republican' is likely full of sh*t, especially if such claim follows a litany of cherry-picked, overblown complaints straight out of the Alinsky playbook for mocking opponents.
Typical Marxist-like response. Only you know the true dogma. All hail the fuck out of you.
Is that actually a constitutional thing? Is there anywhere in the constitution that it says a government institution *must* provide life-saving medical care, or is that just part of societally-accepted ethics?
Societally-accepted ethics can (and will) add/remove/change the constitution. Also, a lot of the constitution has been left to the interpretation of social mores through the ages: think about what "all men are created equal" meant through the different interpretations given since the constitution was written, and what "unalienable Rights", "Life", "Liberty" and "Pursuit of Happiness" have stood for many people through time.
Unless every single possible contingency is written, shit will always be open to socially-accepted/ethical interpretation.
This. This sums up the big problem the ACA is trying to fix and why the individual mandate is important. The majority of the people in the US are just too fucking stupid or steeped in partisan politics to understand it.
Hospitals already can't deny services in an emergency. The ACA and individual mandate only serve to try and limit the hospital's financial loss; it has absolutely nothing to do with the patient.
It is an entirely political question related to the boundary of Government. Do you want to force young, healthy people to have coverage to pay the lion's share for everyone else, or do you allow individuals to take responsibility for the choices they make and the risks they take by not having insurance?
False dichotomy. Try this. Do you want people with pre-existing conditions to be excluded from any type of insurance, or do you force health insurance to give them coverage (passing the amortized cost to the rest of the people w/o pre-existing conditions.) In other words, do we do something about that, or do we live by a "I got mine, fuck you very much" philosophy?
It is interesting (and sad) how people paint every narrative in terms of absolute personal choices. Where are the personal choices in having a pre-existing condition? Over 50% of bankruptcies in the states are related to medical bills. How do we impute "personal choice" when people fall through the economic ranks due to factors predominantly out of their control (globalization comes to mind) and have to make do with zero health insurance (or with crappy money pits like Vista health care plans)?
This is no different from the leftie loonie toons who paint everything in terms of the big, fat, lazy rich man exploiting the hapless but hard working and ethical little man. The same ideological bullshit that just happens to sit on the other side of the political spectrum.
Reality sits somewhere in the middle and solutions requires compromise from everybody involved. Painting everything in terms of either class struggle or personal choices is just a way to pampering their ideological pets over actually giving a shit about their compatriots and their nation.
Is the government in the business of prop-ing businesses up? Funny for most how that answer changes when the subject is large banking institutions.
Yes. The economy is a national strategic asset (oh yes, even in a capitalist economy, this is a truth.) Also, you are asking the wrong question. A more appropriate question to ask is "do the current actions (or in-actions) taken by the government with respect to X or Y line of business provide a positive (or negative) net effect on the economy?"
You mean the party that kept sending bills to the senate while the Dems said only "NO, NO, NO! We'd rather have a mandated shutdown!"?
You mean
That party you mean???
This is not to say the Dems are blameless, but for fuck's sake, stop saying the GOP is the party that keeps sending bills to the senate. That's fucking bullshit, and you know it.
Truly yours, a life-long Republican tired of seeing a sea of stupid beasts more interested in destruction, confederate-flag waving, secession, creationism, birtherism, social-medieval conservatism-barbarism and just blatant mental anachronisms than on making things work with the other half of the population who does not agree with everything they say...
Given the resources of the NSA, how many countries would be doing the exact same thing?
The more appropriate question is 'Given the resources of the NSA, how many countries should be doing the exact same thing?'
Until everyone is in a group-hug kumbaya fest, all of them.
> Are you a country, or are you a federation of states?
If you have to ask then you don't have enough of a clue to be a meaningful part of the conversation.
His question is rhetorical in nature, and your answer is not a logical reply but a veiled invective.
You could buy computers with backs that opened, and you could configure them with new hardware...
You still can.
It does not have to be against the law to criticize your employer for your employer to fire you over it. Your employer can fire you for just about any reason they like. Government as employer? Might take longer, but amass enough paper against you and eventually you go away. However, if your employer is the government you could easily be subject to jail and fines if you say the wrong things in the course of your criticism (not saying that applies in this case).
In this particular case of Joseph, yes, his position required a respectable public image. But I'm talking more about grunts, people not in the public eye. Taking the Pepsi example, I mean, do you really think that'd stand up in a court if the fired employee made a huge stink over it? There are laws against discrimination in hiring/firing practices. Those are all based on tangible qualities, such as age, race, gender, sexual orientation.. but then we get to.. religion. That's protected too. And that's an opinion, a preference.
An opinion is also a tangible quality. The opinion that all people are created equal is one that should never get someone fired, for example. Certainly a religion is an opinion and a preference as much as it is a preference to have a particular political POV. Just as it is unconscionable to fire someone from being, say, Republican, Democrat, independent or whatever, it should also be unconscionable to fire someone for choosing to profess a faith.
Horrendous crimes have been committed against people for exercising a right to an opinion or preference (specially one so closely tied to a person's upbringing or culture.) The path down that road starts when such opinions are not conferred equal protection.