It's disingenuous not to see that the scientific community, as much as it is to blame as anyone, brought this distinctly on themselves.
Since the 1960s and particularly in the 1980s, scientists cheerfully have joined the debate, not as asserters of facts and data, but as political voices themselves. "We hate Ronald Ray-gun" so the Union of Concerned Scientists (among others) were histrionic in their puerile terror of nuclear weapons, despite those very weapons ensuring the longest period of great-power peace that modern civilization has seen. Scientists were at the forefront of the Silent Spring movement to ban DDT, when in fact the very experiments Rachel Carson discussed had been recognized by their originators as deeply flawed. Scientists too have repeatedly been part of the Green movement, lying down in front of trains in the 1970s and 80s to kill the entire nuclear power industry in the US - leaving us with no choice but to consume fossil fuels. Hell, I could pull up 10 web pages right now with 'scientists' explaining in detail why GMO food is deadly dangerous to consume.
This debate has often been compared as "the anti-science Right" vs "the truth". The fact is: to the bulk of the populace, Credibility matters. If you cry wolf enough times about how the sky is falling, and it never does, ultimately people stop listening...even if this time you're right.
If the Pope says (confirming what mainstream Christians have believed for a long time) that homosexuals aren't bad, and now Evolution and Big Bang are consistent with orthodox Catholic thought, what the heck else are we going to build our strawmen attacks out of?...because you don't really think this will change anyone's mind about how they feel about religion, do you?
Artsy Paris design firm != actual aircraft designers.
Unless today's engineers take their aesthetic choices from someone else's random napkin doodles, I think we are safe with windows for a while.
(Btw what's up with the recent frequency of "new products" from design firms who pretty much just conceptualize a design by drawing a picture, with absolutely no engineering background, nor actual intent to build a working product? Aren't the aesthetics kind of the last concern, for most things?)
I understand from the tone of your post that you assume "cops are the enemy" but you'd have to admit that it would make genuine law enforcement rather problematic if anyone could see where police officers are at any time.
Considering the ratio of police to criminals, the odds that a cop happens to see a person in the act of breaking the law are fantastically low anyway.
...was that absolutely CS is like many professions a labor of love, you follow what interests you.
And 100% of the girls in high school - even the ones that were brilliant in science and math - had far, far better things to do with their spare time than to fuck around with a computer in mom's basement or dad's attic.
...after all, he was just an ignorant shlub that brought Ebola here.
This dipshit however was a MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL, coming back from TREATING PEOPLE WITH EBOLA who 'felt like crap' for several days (enough so that he was taking his temp regularly) and couldn't apparently be trusted to quarantine himself out of basic precautionary concern. Nope, he had to maintain his urbanite/hipster lifestyle - jogging, taxis, bowling, etc.
Doc: "DO NO HARM" applies just as much to the millions of people around you, as to your actual patient.
Here's a general tip: if you're working directly with Ebola patients, how about you just say "hey, friends, I just got back from West Africa; I feel fine, but just to be careful I'm not spreading a highly communicable deadly disease, I'm going to hang out at home alone for a few weeks, just to be safe." I'm going to guess your friends and colleagues will appreciate your concern.
It's almost like they don't want a pure meritocracy?
The feminist movement is not about being treated as equals; it's about identifying a majority (seriously!) of the human population as "victims" in order to gain wealth and political power 'advocating' on their behalf.
I'm 47. I've grown up with computers my whole life, from learning to play Oregon Trail on a MECC linotype terminal with a 300-baud modem in the coupler, to sitting in my friend's living room in 6th grade, when his dad (a VP at IBM) came in to tell us that they'd decided to come out with a computer to compete with Apple, it was going to be called a "PC".
*NEVER* were girls generally even faintly interested in computers. Null set, while boys were constantly clustered around the damn things, fighting for turns. Certainly *some* girls were, but they were the same size subset of people that we'd call tomboys - girls not doing stuff common to girls.
Stop rewriting history to try to make your point. Girls never wanted them, not as toys and not as tools.
Today? Today a girl can sit right down at her family's computer - likely she has her own laptop - and do whatever she fucking wants, and no amount of revisionist politically-correct nonsense will change the fact that most girls have better things to do than sit in a lonely room dinking around with a computer.
...so today are women ndividuals who can do anything men can do and are perfectly capable of functioning in modern society to wit, choosing the career path that they want to follow out of interest, talent, and education?
Or are they intimidatable, wilting violets incapable of exercising free will, intimidated by the faintest approbation, and unable to choose a career because some shitty 1980s movies didn't ACTUALLY show "girls doing data entry"?
I'm just trying to keep track here. I need to know if I should treat them like plain old people, or tread delicately around their fragile sensibilities?
Considering how much crap has gone seriously wrong by the time it happens, I'm going to guess you're not getting a 'sigh of relief' when the 'chutes pop...pretty much I'd be saving that until I'm standing outside, on the ground, looking at the bloody thing.
Why would the post link to Wired, which reads more like a paen to the photographer? Instead, go to the photographer's blog directly http://alastairphilipwiper.com... sheesh.
We're talking about people who are storing their eggs so they can WORK. They're not storing their eggs so they can go save starving children in Ethiopia, or be an astronaut.
Yeah, it's an astonishing assumption that they're doing that to accumulate wealth? I guess power is an alternative goal. Big office? Nice title? Pick one.
Indeed, it isn't the only reason people wait until later to have kids, of course not.
But the CONTEXT here is companies offering it as a benefit, not the general concept of waiting to have kids.
So which would you prefer, the guy who's up front about what he believes and does (though you may not like it) or the guy who tells you what you want to hear, and then does the same things?
I'd prefer the honest scoundrel over platitudes and deception, personally.
Except that liquidity isn't necessarily the be-all and end-all of a healthy economy - that's pure Keynes, fallacy of the broken window nonsense.
You might want to try reading Hayek, for an alternative view. Not that his is free of begged assumptions and leaps of faith, it's just another approach to the unrepentant Keynesian dogma that's dominated since WW2.
Keynes is naturally much-favored by governments, as it simultaneously tells politicians how powerful they are and blesses their desire to meddle and control. I'm not sure that's a durable rationale for running an economy.
Maybe because someone promised that this would be the "most transparent administration ever" and the whole way of doing business in Washington would "CHANGE"?
I know, I know, only a moron would believe a politician (esp from Chicago), but apparently many did.
Hey, there's nothing wrong with prioritizing your life over your childrens', it just generally doesn't produce very good people.
And if you think that building a better career so you can have more wealth and give your child more opportunities is worth the tradeoff, you probably don't really understand how much of parenting is about stuff other than dollars, anyway.
While the US and Western Europe had been complicit in Saddam's weapons programs up to GW1, after that it was speculated that the main supplier of many weapons systems and tech after 1991 were the Soviets/Russians.
So, if the narrative is that much of this was relocated to the local Soviet/Russian client Syria...one doesn't have to be a rocket scientist to then wonder that, at the collapse of the civil situation there, that (surprise?) Russia jumped up to volunteer to go 'deal' with the chem stockpiles in Syria. Likely they would have cleaned up any Iraqi leftovers as well, and we (the current administration) were likely fine with that.
Slashdot Mirror
It's disingenuous not to see that the scientific community, as much as it is to blame as anyone, brought this distinctly on themselves.
Since the 1960s and particularly in the 1980s, scientists cheerfully have joined the debate, not as asserters of facts and data, but as political voices themselves. "We hate Ronald Ray-gun" so the Union of Concerned Scientists (among others) were histrionic in their puerile terror of nuclear weapons, despite those very weapons ensuring the longest period of great-power peace that modern civilization has seen. Scientists were at the forefront of the Silent Spring movement to ban DDT, when in fact the very experiments Rachel Carson discussed had been recognized by their originators as deeply flawed. Scientists too have repeatedly been part of the Green movement, lying down in front of trains in the 1970s and 80s to kill the entire nuclear power industry in the US - leaving us with no choice but to consume fossil fuels. Hell, I could pull up 10 web pages right now with 'scientists' explaining in detail why GMO food is deadly dangerous to consume.
This debate has often been compared as "the anti-science Right" vs "the truth". The fact is: to the bulk of the populace, Credibility matters. If you cry wolf enough times about how the sky is falling, and it never does, ultimately people stop listening...even if this time you're right.
If the Pope says (confirming what mainstream Christians have believed for a long time) that homosexuals aren't bad, and now Evolution and Big Bang are consistent with orthodox Catholic thought, what the heck else are we going to build our strawmen attacks out of? ...because you don't really think this will change anyone's mind about how they feel about religion, do you?
This was so vapid and banal, I checked to see if the byline was Bennett Haselton.
Then again, it wasn't a 6000-word opus, so I should have known better.
Yes, it's intellectually useful to be challenged. And?
Artsy Paris design firm != actual aircraft designers.
Unless today's engineers take their aesthetic choices from someone else's random napkin doodles, I think we are safe with windows for a while.
(Btw what's up with the recent frequency of "new products" from design firms who pretty much just conceptualize a design by drawing a picture, with absolutely no engineering background, nor actual intent to build a working product? Aren't the aesthetics kind of the last concern, for most things?)
...I just walked outside, and seriously, I saw "genetically modified organisms" EVERYWHERE.
Flowers, pumpkins, dogs, hell, I even saw genetically modified people sipping coffee like ...like it was normal!
It's a bloody catastrophe, why isn't anyone else afraid?!?!?!?
I understand from the tone of your post that you assume "cops are the enemy" but you'd have to admit that it would make genuine law enforcement rather problematic if anyone could see where police officers are at any time.
Considering the ratio of police to criminals, the odds that a cop happens to see a person in the act of breaking the law are fantastically low anyway.
...was that absolutely CS is like many professions a labor of love, you follow what interests you.
And 100% of the girls in high school - even the ones that were brilliant in science and math - had far, far better things to do with their spare time than to fuck around with a computer in mom's basement or dad's attic.
..at least from the article it seems to me that the victims in this case are entirely innocent.
It seems entirely unjust, and obviously so.
I'd say it's a perfect case where someone would go to their congressman or senator and start getting some crap stirred up.
We should just raise the minimum salary per year for everyone to $250,000. That way everyone could finally live comfortably!
(And before you say "that's a stupid idea because of X" realize that X also likely applies to any assertion that we should raise the minimum wage.)
Measles is considered pretty communicable, at a rate of 1.2.
Ebola is a 1.7.
"EU officials hope the agreement will encourage the U.S. and China to take a more aggressive stance on fighting climate change."
The US?
Would that be the same United States that met the original Kyoto reduction targets without trying?
...after all, he was just an ignorant shlub that brought Ebola here.
This dipshit however was a MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL, coming back from TREATING PEOPLE WITH EBOLA who 'felt like crap' for several days (enough so that he was taking his temp regularly) and couldn't apparently be trusted to quarantine himself out of basic precautionary concern. Nope, he had to maintain his urbanite/hipster lifestyle - jogging, taxis, bowling, etc.
Doc: "DO NO HARM" applies just as much to the millions of people around you, as to your actual patient.
Here's a general tip: if you're working directly with Ebola patients, how about you just say "hey, friends, I just got back from West Africa; I feel fine, but just to be careful I'm not spreading a highly communicable deadly disease, I'm going to hang out at home alone for a few weeks, just to be safe."
I'm going to guess your friends and colleagues will appreciate your concern.
You could say it's "XX-rated"
It's almost like they don't want a pure meritocracy?
The feminist movement is not about being treated as equals; it's about identifying a majority (seriously!) of the human population as "victims" in order to gain wealth and political power 'advocating' on their behalf.
He said "fuck".
My vagina feels sexually harassed.
And when, pray tell, was that?
Oh...never.
I'm 47. I've grown up with computers my whole life, from learning to play Oregon Trail on a MECC linotype terminal with a 300-baud modem in the coupler, to sitting in my friend's living room in 6th grade, when his dad (a VP at IBM) came in to tell us that they'd decided to come out with a computer to compete with Apple, it was going to be called a "PC".
*NEVER* were girls generally even faintly interested in computers. Null set, while boys were constantly clustered around the damn things, fighting for turns. Certainly *some* girls were, but they were the same size subset of people that we'd call tomboys - girls not doing stuff common to girls.
Stop rewriting history to try to make your point. Girls never wanted them, not as toys and not as tools.
Today? Today a girl can sit right down at her family's computer - likely she has her own laptop - and do whatever she fucking wants, and no amount of revisionist politically-correct nonsense will change the fact that most girls have better things to do than sit in a lonely room dinking around with a computer.
...so today are women ndividuals who can do anything men can do and are perfectly capable of functioning in modern society to wit, choosing the career path that they want to follow out of interest, talent, and education?
Or are they intimidatable, wilting violets incapable of exercising free will, intimidated by the faintest approbation, and unable to choose a career because some shitty 1980s movies didn't ACTUALLY show "girls doing data entry"?
I'm just trying to keep track here. I need to know if I should treat them like plain old people, or tread delicately around their fragile sensibilities?
Considering how much crap has gone seriously wrong by the time it happens, I'm going to guess you're not getting a 'sigh of relief' when the 'chutes pop...pretty much I'd be saving that until I'm standing outside, on the ground, looking at the bloody thing.
Why would the post link to Wired, which reads more like a paen to the photographer?
Instead, go to the photographer's blog directly http://alastairphilipwiper.com... sheesh.
We're talking about people who are storing their eggs so they can WORK. They're not storing their eggs so they can go save starving children in Ethiopia, or be an astronaut.
Yeah, it's an astonishing assumption that they're doing that to accumulate wealth? I guess power is an alternative goal. Big office? Nice title? Pick one.
Indeed, it isn't the only reason people wait until later to have kids, of course not.
But the CONTEXT here is companies offering it as a benefit, not the general concept of waiting to have kids.
So which would you prefer, the guy who's up front about what he believes and does (though you may not like it) or the guy who tells you what you want to hear, and then does the same things?
I'd prefer the honest scoundrel over platitudes and deception, personally.
Except that liquidity isn't necessarily the be-all and end-all of a healthy economy - that's pure Keynes, fallacy of the broken window nonsense.
You might want to try reading Hayek, for an alternative view. Not that his is free of begged assumptions and leaps of faith, it's just another approach to the unrepentant Keynesian dogma that's dominated since WW2.
Keynes is naturally much-favored by governments, as it simultaneously tells politicians how powerful they are and blesses their desire to meddle and control. I'm not sure that's a durable rationale for running an economy.
Keynes vs Hayek rap battle: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Maybe because someone promised that this would be the "most transparent administration ever" and the whole way of doing business in Washington would "CHANGE"?
I know, I know, only a moron would believe a politician (esp from Chicago), but apparently many did.
Hey, there's nothing wrong with prioritizing your life over your childrens', it just generally doesn't produce very good people.
And if you think that building a better career so you can have more wealth and give your child more opportunities is worth the tradeoff, you probably don't really understand how much of parenting is about stuff other than dollars, anyway.
While the US and Western Europe had been complicit in Saddam's weapons programs up to GW1, after that it was speculated that the main supplier of many weapons systems and tech after 1991 were the Soviets/Russians.
So, if the narrative is that much of this was relocated to the local Soviet/Russian client Syria...one doesn't have to be a rocket scientist to then wonder that, at the collapse of the civil situation there, that (surprise?) Russia jumped up to volunteer to go 'deal' with the chem stockpiles in Syria. Likely they would have cleaned up any Iraqi leftovers as well, and we (the current administration) were likely fine with that.