Live on the moon in 1/6th gravity. Never come to Earth again. Ridiculously expensive to have family and friends visit. Possible long term health consequences, possible heath effect for children, if children are even a possiblity.
"n different words, the US government is taking away most of the money flowing to scientifically valuable projects and instead handing it out to big corporations with no experience."
No experience in what? Building moon bases? Who has that kind of experience? Building equipment to build moonbases? I think Boeing and Caterpillar might be good bets as Boeing is a space contractor and Caterpillar is manufacturer of construction equipment.
Tell us, who would you recommend to build a moon base? Or are you suggesting we don't build a moonbase? In which case, what do you suggest we do instead?
They are evil. They are annoying. And, I really don't want to hear how I can stop having itchy, watery eyes if I am willing to put up with constapation, erectile disfunction, loss of sex drive, unusal hair growth and anal leakage.
Maybe you should look into getting the TAB "Build your own robot" or "Build your own sumobot" kits.
The bots are BASIC Stamp based, come with software for programming them, and the only thing needed to program one is a serial cable. They are expandable, fairly durable, easy to put together, cheaper than many of the other options I have seen on here, and the programs can be tried out immediately.
Second, such actions would not be necessary if people didn't make illegal, unauthorized copies of software to use, sell, trade, or give away. Perhaps if people were more honest, such things would not be necessary. Personally, I find it funny that anyone complains, as such things have been going on since the early 80s.
Of course, if you left your last job on good terms, you may be able to get your old job back. And, you are assuming that the person has already left their previous job.
When I accepted my current position, I got everything in writing and signed BEFORE I left my old job and I gave my old job two weeks notice. They said I could come back to work for them if they had a position for me, and they meant it.
The MacDonald's scenario you describe is classic bad management. Basically, the manager you describe is a bully. He is playing favorites, and any manager who does such things should be fired. It is bad for morale, for the employees, for productivity, and for company. It can also form the basis for harrassment complaints, possibly sexual harrassment and/or discrimination complaints.
Perhaps the manager you describe should be taught proper behavior and management.
Or a tornado, or debris from a one. Or hail. Or flying debris, like in a hurricane. Or if something goes through the wall and punctures one of the hydrogen tanks. Or a lightening strike starts a fire. Or two feet of snow.
I have read, Ok? I also know that when you take a the long view, the climate has been abnormally stable for the span of human history. I also know that the climate has been much hotter and much colder in the past and that the climate fluctuated much more and more rapidly in the past. I have seen the charts. You can look them up on the web. When you do you will see that over the last 400 million years temperatures fluctuated wildly and at the tail end of the graph is a line that is very short and pretty flat but still has minor ups and downs. You need to get a good sense of geologic time scales and get away from your human time scale.
Once a real and effective standard is settled upon in Linux (api, distro, installation and package maintenance mechanism) I suspect Linux would be much more popular on the layman's desktop.
I don't see that happening any time soon. Too much ideology wrapped up in those things.
So it ~is~ a reasonable inquiry to analyze this period and conclude that something is changing in what we can prove has been relatively constant for us and other creatures.
Yes, that can be said. However, what can not be said is that this time is "normal" or "average" for the Earth. Nor can one say "This is the warmest winter ever!". Nor can one say that the change is not normal.
I assume you understand the threat to the environment and biodiversity that 6-8-10 billion humans represent, that the collapse of the food chain is no fantasy, and that man-made pollutants have permeated the biosphere.
You say that like it's a bad thing. I figure the human race will either get off-planet or destroy a good portion, if not all, of itself in a few hundred years. Life will go on, what survives will evolve, etc etc.
You speak of the problem of a 6+ billion population. Disease, famine, and even violence are nature's way of controlling population. Too many critters eat all the food and then a good portion starve. Too many critters crammed into a space and disease spreads quickly. Too many critters crammed into space and they will start attacking each other. But, humans have empathy and sympathy. Humans have religion and think about the children. So, humans keep sending just enough food to keep the starving alive in areas of famine and the starving make more humans. Humans develop vaccines and antibiotics to prevent disease. Humans lengthen their lifespan. Humans resist birth control. Are you willing to do what must be done to lower the population? Are you willing to let people die?
I hear the statistics that have the U.S. generating more of the waste and consuming more resources than many other countries. What no one mentions is that most of those countries are tribal agrarian societies. Some still have a majority of their population living as hunter-gatherers. Not only do the consume less and generate less waste, they also generate less of everything. They also don't mention that the U.S. produces a very large portion of the world's food.
Would you be willing to live as a subsistence farmer or a hunter-gatherer? Would you and everyone you know who thinks like you be willing to give up cars, air conditioning, computers, refrigeration, electricity, large houses, store bought clothing, grocery stores, and all that the modern world has available to live on a small farm growing enough to live on and maybe a little to sell at market to buy a very few supplies? Are you willing to work fields for your food, and raise animals for you meat?
Let me give you some uncomfortable facts: 1) There are too many people to feed without using industrial farming. 2) There are too many people to feed and cloth without using industrial technology. 3) There are too many people to shelter without using industrial production of building material. 4) There are too many people to provide energy to without using industrial energy production. 5) Pollution can not be reduced significantly without significantly reducing the use of industrial equipment. 6) If the use of industrial equipment is reduced significantly, then people will die.
Avian flu, AIDS, famine, drought. Nature is trying to fix things. We just aren't letting it happen. And, when nature pulls out the big guns, then billions of people will die, and then life will go on.
I see you have no concept of how the universe works. Let me put this simply, in deference to you.
The Earth is not going to stop doing what it has always done just for us. The Earth and it's climate will evolve and change regardless of us or our wants. In the grand scheme of things we are the fleas and the Earth is the dog.
Unfortunately, we are not talking about the climate of Homo Sapiens. We are talking about the climate of the Earth.
The length of time Homo Sapiens has been around is pretty much irrelevant to what the "normal" or "average" climate of the Earth because of the time scale differences.
The Earth is 4 Billion years old. This talks about the weather over the last 120 thousand years. That is 0.003 percent of the age of the Earth.
Maybe they should look a little farther back. Maybe 4 Million years. Of course, if we want to look at the last 1% of the age of the Earth, we would have to look back 40 Million years.
The fact is, the climate over the last 120 thousand years could be the exception and not the rule.
Sorry, but your appeal to outrage and slippery slope have no effect on me. No one has stolen taxpayer money to pay for the surveillance systems. Cameras operated by the police are not everywhere and they do not follow anyone or everyone all day.
It is not the same as if a cop was assigned to follow me all day because the cop could easily blend into a crowd and follow me into places where there are no cameras.
Do you realize that citizen surveillance is one of the first tools used by every government to control its citizens?
That is false. The first tools used are the law and censorship. That is followed by informers, secret police, death squads, etc. Camera surveillance is generally down on the list. Just look at Soviet Russia for an example.
Your ignorance and paranoia is amazing. The first thing you need to understand is that no one has an expectation of privacy in a public place. Putting cameras in a public place is not an invasion of privacy.
Use of public cameras to identify criminals brings up the question of who defines criminal, and who guards the guardians?
No, it doesn't. The law defines who is a criminal. A criminal is one who breaks the law. The government and the people make the laws. If you don't like the laws, change the laws and/or the government. We are a nation of laws, not men.
The thing you keep missing is that no one has an expectation of privacy in a public place. What is the difference if the police officer is watching a monitor or is standing in location being watched by the camera attached to the monitor?
What about video cameras on the dashboards of police cars? Are they not the same as the camera mounted on poles if both cameras point to the same location?
Slashdot Mirror
Ah yes, settlers. How can we sell this?
Live on the moon in 1/6th gravity. Never come to Earth again. Ridiculously expensive to have family and friends visit. Possible long term health consequences, possible heath effect for children, if children are even a possiblity.
Yeah. Everyone I know would like to settle there.
"n different words, the US government is taking away most of the money flowing to scientifically valuable projects and instead handing it out to big corporations with no experience."
No experience in what? Building moon bases? Who has that kind of experience? Building equipment to build moonbases? I think Boeing and Caterpillar might be good bets as Boeing is a space contractor and Caterpillar is manufacturer of construction equipment.
Tell us, who would you recommend to build a moon base? Or are you suggesting we don't build a moonbase? In which case, what do you suggest we do instead?
Quit your bitching about advertising. How do you think they pay for the show?
I will be switching my "work from home" system to Linux and my high-power system to WindowsXP.
Why?
Because my high-power system is SMP and linux has problems with ieee1394 and SMP.
They are evil. They are annoying. And, I really don't want to hear how I can stop having itchy, watery eyes if I am willing to put up with constapation, erectile disfunction, loss of sex drive, unusal hair growth and anal leakage.
I felt much better when they weren't on TV
Maybe you should look into getting the TAB "Build your own robot" or "Build your own sumobot" kits.
The bots are BASIC Stamp based, come with software for programming them, and the only thing needed to program one is a serial cable. They are expandable, fairly durable, easy to put together, cheaper than many of the other options I have seen on here, and the programs can be tried out immediately.
Maybe. But, then the political philosophy in your screen name can not exist without that level of honesty.
First, your comment is irrelevant.
Second, such actions would not be necessary if people didn't make illegal, unauthorized copies of software to use, sell, trade, or give away. Perhaps if people were more honest, such things would not be necessary. Personally, I find it funny that anyone complains, as such things have been going on since the early 80s.
Of course, if you left your last job on good terms, you may be able to get your old job back. And, you are assuming that the person has already left their previous job.
When I accepted my current position, I got everything in writing and signed BEFORE I left my old job and I gave my old job two weeks notice. They said I could come back to work for them if they had a position for me, and they meant it.
The MacDonald's scenario you describe is classic bad management. Basically, the manager you describe is a bully. He is playing favorites, and any manager who does such things should be fired. It is bad for morale, for the employees, for productivity, and for company. It can also form the basis for harrassment complaints, possibly sexual harrassment and/or discrimination complaints.
Perhaps the manager you describe should be taught proper behavior and management.
2 eggs scrambled, small steak, biscuits, orange juice, water, and some fresh fruit.
I have been caffeine free for almost month now.
Or a tornado, or debris from a one.
Or hail.
Or flying debris, like in a hurricane.
Or if something goes through the wall and punctures one of the hydrogen tanks.
Or a lightening strike starts a fire.
Or two feet of snow.
I have read, Ok? I also know that when you take a the long view, the climate has been abnormally stable for the span of human history. I also know that the climate has been much hotter and much colder in the past and that the climate fluctuated much more and more rapidly in the past. I have seen the charts. You can look them up on the web. When you do you will see that over the last 400 million years temperatures fluctuated wildly and at the tail end of the graph is a line that is very short and pretty flat but still has minor ups and downs. You need to get a good sense of geologic time scales and get away from your human time scale.
I don't see that happening any time soon. Too much ideology wrapped up in those things.
Yes, that can be said. However, what can not be said is that this time is "normal" or "average" for the Earth. Nor can one say "This is the warmest winter ever!". Nor can one say that the change is not normal.
You say that like it's a bad thing. I figure the human race will either get off-planet or destroy a good portion, if not all, of itself in a few hundred years. Life will go on, what survives will evolve, etc etc.
You speak of the problem of a 6+ billion population. Disease, famine, and even violence are nature's way of controlling population. Too many critters eat all the food and then a good portion starve. Too many critters crammed into a space and disease spreads quickly. Too many critters crammed into space and they will start attacking each other. But, humans have empathy and sympathy. Humans have religion and think about the children. So, humans keep sending just enough food to keep the starving alive in areas of famine and the starving make more humans. Humans develop vaccines and antibiotics to prevent disease. Humans lengthen their lifespan. Humans resist birth control. Are you willing to do what must be done to lower the population? Are you willing to let people die?
I hear the statistics that have the U.S. generating more of the waste and consuming more resources than many other countries. What no one mentions is that most of those countries are tribal agrarian societies. Some still have a majority of their population living as hunter-gatherers. Not only do the consume less and generate less waste, they also generate less of everything. They also don't mention that the U.S. produces a very large portion of the world's food.
Would you be willing to live as a subsistence farmer or a hunter-gatherer? Would you and everyone you know who thinks like you be willing to give up cars, air conditioning, computers, refrigeration, electricity, large houses, store bought clothing, grocery stores, and all that the modern world has available to live on a small farm growing enough to live on and maybe a little to sell at market to buy a very few supplies? Are you willing to work fields for your food, and raise animals for you meat?
Let me give you some uncomfortable facts:
1) There are too many people to feed without using industrial farming.
2) There are too many people to feed and cloth without using industrial technology.
3) There are too many people to shelter without using industrial production of building material.
4) There are too many people to provide energy to without using industrial energy production.
5) Pollution can not be reduced significantly without significantly reducing the use of industrial equipment.
6) If the use of industrial equipment is reduced significantly, then people will die.
Avian flu, AIDS, famine, drought. Nature is trying to fix things. We just aren't letting it happen. And, when nature pulls out the big guns, then billions of people will die, and then life will go on.
I see you have no concept of how the universe works. Let me put this simply, in deference to you.
The Earth is not going to stop doing what it has always done just for us. The Earth and it's climate will evolve and change regardless of us or our wants. In the grand scheme of things we are the fleas and the Earth is the dog.
Unfortunately, we are not talking about the climate of Homo Sapiens. We are talking about the climate of the Earth.
The length of time Homo Sapiens has been around is pretty much irrelevant to what the "normal" or "average" climate of the Earth because of the time scale differences.
The Earth is 4 Billion years old. This talks about the weather over the last 120 thousand years.
That is 0.003 percent of the age of the Earth.
Maybe they should look a little farther back. Maybe 4 Million years. Of course, if we want to look at the last 1% of the age of the Earth, we would have to look back 40 Million years.
The fact is, the climate over the last 120 thousand years could be the exception and not the rule.
You need to put a new battery in your sarcasm detector.
What happens when the CEO comes to you and says "We need the following files that were deleted 6 months ago to defend a lawsuit?"
What happens when the SOX auditor comes to you and asks "Do you have all the data from 2005?"
While you can do such a thing, it should never be necessary. That it would be necessary is a sign of bad design.
What is the percentage of computers running O/Ses compiled using GCC?
No one has an expectation of privacy in a public place. By definition, public is never private.
No one has stolen taxpayer money to pay for the surveillance systems. Cameras operated by the police are not everywhere and they do not follow anyone or everyone all day.
It is not the same as if a cop was assigned to follow me all day because the cop could easily blend into a crowd and follow me into places where there are no cameras.
That is false. The first tools used are the law and censorship. That is followed by informers, secret police, death squads, etc. Camera surveillance is generally down on the list. Just look at Soviet Russia for an example.
Your ignorance and paranoia is amazing. The first thing you need to understand is that no one has an expectation of privacy in a public place. Putting cameras in a public place is not an invasion of privacy.
No, it doesn't. The law defines who is a criminal. A criminal is one who breaks the law. The government and the people make the laws. If you don't like the laws, change the laws and/or the government. We are a nation of laws, not men.
The thing you keep missing is that no one has an expectation of privacy in a public place. What is the difference if the police officer is watching a monitor or is standing in location being watched by the camera attached to the monitor?
What about video cameras on the dashboards of police cars? Are they not the same as the camera mounted on poles if both cameras point to the same location?
What about cameras at ATMs?
Your argument is full of holes.