One might even suggest we get all science-y and have a control group, evaluation criteria, test for statistical validity, check for confounding factors and other seemingly sensible steps.
Procurement in many organizations is supposed to verify that management understands what they are buying.
They're supposed to verify that the order placed is what the manager wants rather than just what they asked for, but that's not the same thing as ensuring they understand the purchase, not at all. Management is in charge of strategy, they get the credit and the blame.
Forget about the class warfare, OK? Even Bruce Springsteen would agree that as long as everyone is winning, it shouldn't matter if someone is winning more.
Everyone except the most radical parts of the left would likely agree with that, the problem is when everyone stops winning it becomes a lot less palatable. In the US, that occurred in the mid-1970s so even the slowest among us have figured out that something is wrong by now.
I was thinking more about feeding your work animals (mule/horse/oxen). Yes, they eat mostly hay but if you're going to work them hard you usually need to supplement with grain to keep their weight up.
SCP and rsync are file transfer protocols not file sharing protocols, they don't work nearly the same. Perhaps your solution works for a single developer's workstation or a small technology startup but it's not going to scale to a large business with many employees, most of whom do not work in IT.
Well how do you think this person is supporting themselves in this post-collapse economy? A person is not an island, you're going to need things from other people. You need an income.
Even if income is not an issue, you need a lot more than just a vegetable patch. You also need room for grain, both for people and livestock. On top of that you'll need hay and pasture space for your animals, a small orchard and likely a woodlot for fuel. Some of your land won't be very useful so add extra for that. It depends on climate and soil type as well. Oh and you'll need room for your home, barn and other outbuildings.
Farming is hard work, you're going to need a spouse and plenty of children so that ups the required space as well since you're not feeding just one person. Remember you're not going to have a diesel tractor, chemical fertilizers or pesticides, that reduces your yields and increases your work considerably.
In the 1930s agricultural census, a self-sufficiency plot was defined as a farm where more than 50% of the products were consumed by the family living there. The general size of those farms was 20 to 100 acres in size.
Now if you have some kind of labor job and just want to supplement your food supply, then sure you can do a lot with a couple of acres but don't expect that to take care of everything.
Focused narrowly on applications I think that's a fair approach since we're merely ensuring opportunity. If the focus switches to the hiring phase then it's just another kind of discrimination.
If there was an apocalypse, I assume there would be fewer people alive than there are now.
There is plenty of places to grow things if we all live like homesteaders on 2 or 3 acres of land.
You're going to need a lot more than 2 or 3 acres if you want to have any chance of actually making it. Traditionally the bare minimum was considered 40 acres and a mule. Sure, we can squeeze that down quite a bit with modern techniques but much of what makes high density agriculture work wouldn't be available in a post-collapse scenario.
Perhaps because it's standard for both Windows and OSX workstations? In a multi-platform network SMB is often the best choice for filesharing. If it's setup properly (NTLMv2 only, SSL encrypted, SMB message signing turned on) it's actually pretty reasonable security wise.
I don't really like her or her politics but that issue will probably result in my voting for her as well. It's highly unlikely that the Republicans will nominate someone who isn't crazy.
The carbon tax should be set at a rate that offsets any cost the energy producers are externalizing to the rest of us. I think the best choice would be directing the money into energy research (efficiency or clean production), an tax credit would fine in principle but would likely end up mostly going to large corporations, in no case should it go into the general fund. With the rate at that level it shouldn't be excessively burdensome and consumers will make rational choices on how to adapt.
The current best estimate of this cost is $40/ton in 2015 dollars. At a rough estimate this would increase the cost of Gasoline about $0.18 a gallon for an average car. Obviously it would have a variety of follow on effects for energy prices and the price of goods though industry would scramble to implement newly positive NPV projects that increased energy efficiency or switch fuel sources as appropriate so once things settled down it wouldn't really be that big a deal. Perhaps we might all be about 2% worse off compared to now, which sucks but is better than letting things get out of control and then doing crazy things later.
Apparent to you, who apparently aren't exposed to many mainstream environmentalists.
Well, I can only comment on the ones in California, Oregon and the ones I hear on TV or the Internet. If that doesn't constitute the mainstream then I'm eager to hear where they are hidden.
The same argument could be made that people who oppose environmentalism apparently don't understand basic science--
That's a very broad grouping that includes people who understand science but don't agree with the reactionary solutions. I'd agree that the ones who are opposing the idea of global warming don't understand basic science.
such as "destroying our own food supply might be a bad idea."
I'd agree with that in principle, though many people who say that have no idea what they're talking about.
It is entirely legitimate to not want to wipe out the savings of the middle class just so you can get at the rich people. The rich people may lose a bigger absolute number, but the middle class will lose out proportionately.
Putting the banks into receivership, wiping out the shareholders and selling off the assets to sounder banks to partially satisfy the bond holders while guaranteeing the depositors would have been the best solution for the middle class, it's also how capitalism is supposed to work. The implemented solution just acted as a giant wealth transfer to the rich.
Because as usual environmentalists let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Incremental improvement is a good thing, they need to learn to stop frothing at the mouth over nuclear and demand that we deploy as many as possible to replace the true evil which is coal plants.
What I find funny here (and on other tech sites) is that up until the moment you talk about H1B, everybody's all for opening up the borders and easing up on illegal immigration. It's all lovey-dovey "let's make them legal so they can pay their taxes" up until the point when they're actually legal and competing for the same jobs as the prevailent occupation as the community. But suddenly, as soon as the topic switches to H1B, it's a chorus of "don't let them in, they're stealing out jobs!"
There is a big difference between permanent immigrants and temporary workers. Solution, fast track citizenship for all H1B workers. If they're that great and that in demand we want them to stay.
I don't understand how this falsehood keeps being perpetuated. People actually seem to be proud of being misinformed on this point.
Colonists and immigrants are not the same thing. An immigrant voluntarily chooses to give up their identity and adapt to a new one.
Wait, that distinction is important why? We're certainly not original natives which was the point. Of course, I suppose you have to draw the time divider somewhere since the Indians migrated here too if you go back far enough. Still, I'd call the 1700s a bit soon to be drawing that line.
From a sysadmin perspective, we spent 18 months trying to find a competent sysadmin. When I spoke to HR, mid level sysadmins in the Denver area thought they were worth $250,000 a year.
Wow, maybe I need to move to Denver! Nah, I looked at salary levels for available jobs and they're normal, apparently you're just using hyperbole.
Not really, the middle class actually owns a fairly small portion of the available financial assets. The top 20%, which by definition are not middle class, hold 85% of all financial assets. The largest asset for most middle class workers is their home.
Slashdot Mirror
One might even suggest we get all science-y and have a control group, evaluation criteria, test for statistical validity, check for confounding factors and other seemingly sensible steps.
Procurement in many organizations is supposed to verify that management understands what they are buying.
They're supposed to verify that the order placed is what the manager wants rather than just what they asked for, but that's not the same thing as ensuring they understand the purchase, not at all. Management is in charge of strategy, they get the credit and the blame.
Forget about the class warfare, OK? Even Bruce Springsteen would agree that as long as everyone is winning, it shouldn't matter if someone is winning more.
Everyone except the most radical parts of the left would likely agree with that, the problem is when everyone stops winning it becomes a lot less palatable. In the US, that occurred in the mid-1970s so even the slowest among us have figured out that something is wrong by now.
I was thinking more about feeding your work animals (mule/horse/oxen). Yes, they eat mostly hay but if you're going to work them hard you usually need to supplement with grain to keep their weight up.
SCP and rsync are file transfer protocols not file sharing protocols, they don't work nearly the same. Perhaps your solution works for a single developer's workstation or a small technology startup but it's not going to scale to a large business with many employees, most of whom do not work in IT.
Well how do you think this person is supporting themselves in this post-collapse economy? A person is not an island, you're going to need things from other people. You need an income.
Even if income is not an issue, you need a lot more than just a vegetable patch. You also need room for grain, both for people and livestock. On top of that you'll need hay and pasture space for your animals, a small orchard and likely a woodlot for fuel. Some of your land won't be very useful so add extra for that. It depends on climate and soil type as well. Oh and you'll need room for your home, barn and other outbuildings.
Farming is hard work, you're going to need a spouse and plenty of children so that ups the required space as well since you're not feeding just one person. Remember you're not going to have a diesel tractor, chemical fertilizers or pesticides, that reduces your yields and increases your work considerably.
In the 1930s agricultural census, a self-sufficiency plot was defined as a farm where more than 50% of the products were consumed by the family living there. The general size of those farms was 20 to 100 acres in size.
Now if you have some kind of labor job and just want to supplement your food supply, then sure you can do a lot with a couple of acres but don't expect that to take care of everything.
To be fair I think Asians are also under-represented in basketball.
Focused narrowly on applications I think that's a fair approach since we're merely ensuring opportunity. If the focus switches to the hiring phase then it's just another kind of discrimination.
Is it still sexism if it's correcting an existing sexist imbalance?
It's the difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcomes.
If there was an apocalypse, I assume there would be fewer people alive than there are now.
There is plenty of places to grow things if we all live like homesteaders on 2 or 3 acres of land.
You're going to need a lot more than 2 or 3 acres if you want to have any chance of actually making it. Traditionally the bare minimum was considered 40 acres and a mule. Sure, we can squeeze that down quite a bit with modern techniques but much of what makes high density agriculture work wouldn't be available in a post-collapse scenario.
Well AFP is horrible and NFS isn't exactly fully supported cross platform, that doesn't leave a lot of options.
Nice in theory, but do you really think this government is going make things better?
Well the Republicans aren't offering a free market alternative they're just suggesting we do away with regulating the incumbents.
Perhaps because it's standard for both Windows and OSX workstations? In a multi-platform network SMB is often the best choice for filesharing. If it's setup properly (NTLMv2 only, SSL encrypted, SMB message signing turned on) it's actually pretty reasonable security wise.
she's not bat shit crazy
I don't really like her or her politics but that issue will probably result in my voting for her as well. It's highly unlikely that the Republicans will nominate someone who isn't crazy.
The carbon tax should be set at a rate that offsets any cost the energy producers are externalizing to the rest of us. I think the best choice would be directing the money into energy research (efficiency or clean production), an tax credit would fine in principle but would likely end up mostly going to large corporations, in no case should it go into the general fund. With the rate at that level it shouldn't be excessively burdensome and consumers will make rational choices on how to adapt.
The current best estimate of this cost is $40/ton in 2015 dollars. At a rough estimate this would increase the cost of Gasoline about $0.18 a gallon for an average car. Obviously it would have a variety of follow on effects for energy prices and the price of goods though industry would scramble to implement newly positive NPV projects that increased energy efficiency or switch fuel sources as appropriate so once things settled down it wouldn't really be that big a deal. Perhaps we might all be about 2% worse off compared to now, which sucks but is better than letting things get out of control and then doing crazy things later.
Apparent to you, who apparently aren't exposed to many mainstream environmentalists.
Well, I can only comment on the ones in California, Oregon and the ones I hear on TV or the Internet. If that doesn't constitute the mainstream then I'm eager to hear where they are hidden.
The same argument could be made that people who oppose environmentalism apparently don't understand basic science--
That's a very broad grouping that includes people who understand science but don't agree with the reactionary solutions. I'd agree that the ones who are opposing the idea of global warming don't understand basic science.
such as "destroying our own food supply might be a bad idea."
I'd agree with that in principle, though many people who say that have no idea what they're talking about.
It is entirely legitimate to not want to wipe out the savings of the middle class just so you can get at the rich people. The rich people may lose a bigger absolute number, but the middle class will lose out proportionately.
Putting the banks into receivership, wiping out the shareholders and selling off the assets to sounder banks to partially satisfy the bond holders while guaranteeing the depositors would have been the best solution for the middle class, it's also how capitalism is supposed to work. The implemented solution just acted as a giant wealth transfer to the rich.
Because as usual environmentalists let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Incremental improvement is a good thing, they need to learn to stop frothing at the mouth over nuclear and demand that we deploy as many as possible to replace the true evil which is coal plants.
Is anybody doing that, or even advocating that we do ?
Most environmental groups are advocating it.
What I find funny here (and on other tech sites) is that up until the moment you talk about H1B, everybody's all for opening up the borders and easing up on illegal immigration. It's all lovey-dovey "let's make them legal so they can pay their taxes" up until the point when they're actually legal and competing for the same jobs as the prevailent occupation as the community. But suddenly, as soon as the topic switches to H1B, it's a chorus of "don't let them in, they're stealing out jobs!"
There is a big difference between permanent immigrants and temporary workers. Solution, fast track citizenship for all H1B workers. If they're that great and that in demand we want them to stay.
Right, like the Soviet Union, that whole planned economy thing worked out really well for them.
I don't understand how this falsehood keeps being perpetuated. People actually seem to be proud of being misinformed on this point.
Colonists and immigrants are not the same thing. An immigrant voluntarily chooses to give up their identity and adapt to a new one.
Wait, that distinction is important why? We're certainly not original natives which was the point. Of course, I suppose you have to draw the time divider somewhere since the Indians migrated here too if you go back far enough. Still, I'd call the 1700s a bit soon to be drawing that line.
From a sysadmin perspective, we spent 18 months trying to find a competent sysadmin. When I spoke to HR, mid level sysadmins in the Denver area thought they were worth $250,000 a year.
Wow, maybe I need to move to Denver! Nah, I looked at salary levels for available jobs and they're normal, apparently you're just using hyperbole.
Not really, the middle class actually owns a fairly small portion of the available financial assets. The top 20%, which by definition are not middle class, hold 85% of all financial assets. The largest asset for most middle class workers is their home.
You can't expect your programmers to live in a box out back of the office.
Sure you can, you just need to remove all their other options first.