Apparently, you just suck at two career options. Maybe you SHOULD be delivering pizzas.
Of course, because there can't be any other reason in the past 3-4 years that someone with a solid list of skills and lots of industry experience couldn't find a job. Couldn't have anything to do with a glut of experienced, freshly laid-off lawyers in the legal field or a three year experience gap during law school in the CS field.
(Yeah, yeah... I know, don't feed the trolls, but seriously.)
Oh wow. That's the best you have -- that it was a different branch of US police/military authority?
Gee, I guess the presence of a different set of three letters makes all the difference. Never mind that the NSA and the FBI both have vastly different priorities, missions, and capabilities pre and post 9/11. It's a different agency! That means it can never happen again. I must bow to your wisdom.
You must not be familiar with the fact that the Minnowboard is named after a tiny fish, and that the expansion boards are called "Lures." It's equally twee, but I don't have a problem with that.
The problem is that Snowden didn't just expose rights abuses. He exposed *everything* that the NSA did.
Actually, no. Barton Gellman of The Washington Post has said that he made sure that he had people he could trust not to release everything recklessly before he made his leaks. Glen Greenwald of The Guardian has also asserted that Snowden wanted people with discretion to have his data.
(Unless you live in the fairy land where idealistic heroes defeat Evil Doers, in which case, what Snowden did was a good thing. Too bad we don't live in fairy land.)
It's a bit closer of a neighbor to reality than the imaginary kingdom in which an agency that repeatedly lies to Congress can be trusted with the totalitarian power to watch everything everyone does because they're all just so damned noble and patriotic.
Frankly, I don't consider terrorists as big of a threat to me as I do an unchecked secret police bureau. It's not a matter of if but when these capabilities get turned against US citizens exercising their Constitutional rights to express political opinions that those in power don't like. All one has to do is remember COINTELPRO and Nixon.
When the manufacture of goods becomes a matter of popping someone's design in a scanner, sharing it over the web, and then letting others print it at home, IP will become even more critical to business than it is today. Businesses will not simply limply waggle their hands in the air and moan in impotent, melodramatic depression if piracy of physical goods becomes possible. They will lobby. Hard.
You think the eternal extension of copyright is bad with just the entertainment industry behind it? You haven't seen anything yet. If IP becomes king of all property law, then IP will rule it.
Power plants aren't always the most modern of things, given the huge capital costs in construction and various environmental regulations (e.g. the Clean Air Act) that require any plant making "major modifications" to conform to current emissions regulations which place a financial hurdle for upgrades.
However, you are right that Windscale is mostly irrelevant to discussion of modern nuclear power because it happened due to Cold War short-cutting to produce nuclear weapons. An accident like that would never happen in a modern, civilian plant.
It makes sense because their offering is excellent (most who have used it say "superior"[).]
This is the first I've heard of that since I don't know anyone with a Windows phone. While I'm unlikely to switch, I'd like to know more. Why is their offering superior?
We all know he could have a job at Wal-Mart, 7-11, or McDonald's within a few hours.
You obviously don't know anyone who works in that segment of the economy. None of those places are "always hiring," and most have backlogs of resumes to go through. Worse, having a resume with a good job history on it is poison for low-end jobs, where people assume that you'll be jumping ship at first chance for a better job more in line with what you've done. Speaking from experience, no one wants someone with 7 years of development experience and a fresh law degree to deliver their pizzas.
Plus, my friend who does work for Wal-mart? He'd be homeless too if he couldn't live with him Mom based on what they pay him in his eternally part-time position.
Did you somehow mistake me for praising China and Russia? They're terrible places from the perspective of freedom.
But the bigger issue is that none of the countries that supposedly love freedom will stand up for him. The choice for Snowden is (a) keep silent about abuses of our rights, (b) throw himself on a grenade by staying within arms reach of the US government, or (c) make his stand from a country which is even worse but which won't lock him up for it.
The least terrible choice from both the perspective of getting the word out and his own freedom was (c), but none of his choices were good. If you think there was an actual good choice for him, then speak up and stop trashing him for the one he did take. It's not like you put your skin on the line for freedom; you don't get to speak like you're talking from a higher moral position than him from the comfort of your chair.
Because [...] the media will be full of stories for months after you kill a human crew in deep space, whereas a failed unmanned mission makes a brief story on page ten for a day.
So what you're saying is that all we have to do to get the media to focus for months on science and exploration instead of salivating over war and celebrities is to sacrifice a few astronauts?
Can I sign up for the program? I'd consider that a noble use of my life in and of itself.
Edward Snowden must feel so proud of his newly adopted homeland.
Name a country from which he could reveal secrets about how the US government has been spying on its citizens and not get extradited and sent to jail which isn't on our "bad guys" list.
Yes, Snowden chose countries like China and Russia to make his stand from, but it's not like he had any other choices that would keep him from ending up like all the other whistleblowers this administration has gone after hard.
So far, there is no proof to demonstrates that CO2 has any negative effects on the atmosphere or the ecosystem.
None? If you have convinced yourself of that, then there is nothing that can be said to disprove it.
The infrared absorption profile of CO2 is well-known. So is the reaction of CO2 and water. If you still persist in believing that global warming and ocean acidification aren't real, then you have probably invested yourself heavily in that belief in spite of the evidence surrounding you. No amount of proof will satisfy a zealot.
It kind of puts the environmentalists in a bit of a clamor. They wont know which way to go with this
Not really. Sweeping environmental problems under the rug not only doesn't address the core issues but ignores that things have a way of slipping out from under the rug when no one's paying attention anymore.
Additionally, carbon sequestration is expensive and generates no sellable product. It's like dealing with mine tailings. As soon as a company no longer has to watch it to take care of accidental spills and leaks, they won't, leaving the government to pick up the bag.
Worse, one of the advantages of natural gas is that it's easy to transport and can be burned far from the source. How easy is it to capture carbon dioxide and then ship it all the way back to the fields to be sequestered? How much energy does that transportation take and how much does pumping it back into the ground take?
This is a loser of an idea. The only merit it has is as a fig leaf to justify more fracking, which only makes the problem worse.
Of course, I've done my best to structure my finances such that should either event occur, I have a bit of leeway on finding alternate employment but I know that's out of fashion these days.
It's nice to be a white-collar worker, isn't it? Not everyone really has the option of just up and leaving at a moments notice. Maybe they don't make enough to save beyond their expenses. Maybe there isn't a lot of alternative jobs for people in their position. Maybe there are, but the entire industry is rotten. "Firing" your company by yourself is just about as effective as boycotting its products by yourself. Employees and customers are more replaceable than you think.
Despite you trivializing the problems of others as "fashion," the quality of jobs supplied sinks to the level the market will bear. Without any form of worker pushback other than voluntary unemployment, companies can exploit the desperate at will. People who sneer at unions don't really understand what it was they had to sacrifice to get us up to the standards we have today, and if anything the past 30 years has shown the slow decline in labor conditions ever since they were removed from the picture. I don't think we'll ever go back to the days of "The Jungle," but much of the loss of the American middle class has been the destruction of well-paying blue collar jobs because of globalization undercutting single-nation unions by providing a cheaper, more easily exploitable labor supply.
Yes. Negotiations made under thread of crashing a company into the ground financially are much fairer.
Considering that the employer normally has the ability to fire at will anyone who makes too many waves at a company, yes, they are much fairer. Not nicer. Not more efficient. But fairer.
Well's Fargo bought them back in 2008, in 2011 the name "Wachovia" had earned too much negative press so they quietly discontinued the "Wachovia" name and brought them under the Well's Fargo branding. But other than some new paint on the branch locations and a little shuffling around at the top of the food chain, it's business as usual.
Which, of course, is hilarious to anyone who was a First Union customer before they bought Wachovia and then swapped names to shed the negative press around the First Union name. I think they're running out of banks to ruin the names of.
Actually, creatures with a slow metabolism have slower perception of time as well, as the title of the paper says. The European eel, blacknose shark, and tokay gecko had the slowest, third slowest, and fourth slowest reaction times out of all animals surveyed, and they're relatively small but have very slow metabolisms.
Seniors see the world at blazing speeds... [s]itting in the left lane going ten under the speed limit while the world screams by.
Well sure. Everyone knows that children grow at an impressive rate. By the time they reach 18, they are twice as large as they were at age 2. Extrapolating from that, by the time they are in their late 60s, the average senior citizen is nearly 50 feet tall and thus perceives the world at a fraction of the rate we young people do. You can see it best in how slowly they change their opinions. From their lofty perspective, nothing has changed.
It's not just a simple matter of "add water & CO2, get more plants." Increasing temperatures start to kill plants and animals that aren't adapted to the new temperature range. That starts knocking out portions of the food web, and ecosystems start to collapse. If soil cover is eroded by a lack of protective plants, increased rain will actually worsen matters as it gets washed away in floods (which will be more frequent without the "evening" effect of mountain snowpacks as slow-release water reservoirs).
Millions of years under these conditions could eventually lead to more jungles, but in the short term, deserts would dominate.
Have you got a solution that doesn't involve regulation?
Depends on what you call regulation. A carbon tax-and-refund scheme would let the market find a solution by attaching an appropriate price to an externality. That would be significantly less government interference than a cap & trade or straight up permit-based regulation scheme.
However, if "tax and let the market figure it out" falls into the camp of (evil) regulation, then no. It turns out that the main reason laws exist is to keep people from doing stuff that benefits themselves at the expense of others who can't in turn do anything to stop it without resorting to violence or other worse behavior.
It's science. It's the discovery of a new species. It involves caves and exploration to depths previously unreached. It involves slimy creatures that the mainstream wouldn't love -- tiny little snails with no eyes and translucent shells and bodies that hitch a ride on bigger mammals to cover large distances. Where is your inner child such that you look at those pictures and feel no sense of wonder or joy about it?
If you can't find a single nerdy interest in all of this, and all you have to offer is some redneck nationalism, then I'd say to turn in your geek card, but you probably never had one in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
>> Only a few [high-traffic sites] seem to have tried user-moderation systems
Haven't been to YouTube lately, have you?
YouTube is many sites? I'm not sure exactly how adding one site to "few" changes it to "not few."
YHBT. YHL. HAND.
Apparently, you just suck at two career options. Maybe you SHOULD be delivering pizzas.
Of course, because there can't be any other reason in the past 3-4 years that someone with a solid list of skills and lots of industry experience couldn't find a job. Couldn't have anything to do with a glut of experienced, freshly laid-off lawyers in the legal field or a three year experience gap during law school in the CS field.
(Yeah, yeah... I know, don't feed the trolls, but seriously.)
Having worked in cubes and open spaces, I'll take my cube any day. Inadequate privacy to concentrate in is much better than no privacy.
Oh wow. That's the best you have -- that it was a different branch of US police/military authority?
Gee, I guess the presence of a different set of three letters makes all the difference. Never mind that the NSA and the FBI both have vastly different priorities, missions, and capabilities pre and post 9/11. It's a different agency! That means it can never happen again. I must bow to your wisdom.
This debate is a joke. I'm done here.
You must not be familiar with the fact that the Minnowboard is named after a tiny fish, and that the expansion boards are called "Lures." It's equally twee, but I don't have a problem with that.
The problem is that Snowden didn't just expose rights abuses. He exposed *everything* that the NSA did.
Actually, no. Barton Gellman of The Washington Post has said that he made sure that he had people he could trust not to release everything recklessly before he made his leaks. Glen Greenwald of The Guardian has also asserted that Snowden wanted people with discretion to have his data.
(Unless you live in the fairy land where idealistic heroes defeat Evil Doers, in which case, what Snowden did was a good thing. Too bad we don't live in fairy land.)
It's a bit closer of a neighbor to reality than the imaginary kingdom in which an agency that repeatedly lies to Congress can be trusted with the totalitarian power to watch everything everyone does because they're all just so damned noble and patriotic.
Frankly, I don't consider terrorists as big of a threat to me as I do an unchecked secret police bureau. It's not a matter of if but when these capabilities get turned against US citizens exercising their Constitutional rights to express political opinions that those in power don't like. All one has to do is remember COINTELPRO and Nixon.
When the manufacture of goods becomes a matter of popping someone's design in a scanner, sharing it over the web, and then letting others print it at home, IP will become even more critical to business than it is today. Businesses will not simply limply waggle their hands in the air and moan in impotent, melodramatic depression if piracy of physical goods becomes possible. They will lobby. Hard.
You think the eternal extension of copyright is bad with just the entertainment industry behind it? You haven't seen anything yet. If IP becomes king of all property law, then IP will rule it.
Not that it's entirely relevant to GP's post against new nuclear plants, but half of the nuclear plants operating in America started operation from 1969-1977. (See Table 8.)
Power plants aren't always the most modern of things, given the huge capital costs in construction and various environmental regulations (e.g. the Clean Air Act) that require any plant making "major modifications" to conform to current emissions regulations which place a financial hurdle for upgrades.
However, you are right that Windscale is mostly irrelevant to discussion of modern nuclear power because it happened due to Cold War short-cutting to produce nuclear weapons. An accident like that would never happen in a modern, civilian plant.
It makes sense because their offering is excellent (most who have used it say "superior"[).]
This is the first I've heard of that since I don't know anyone with a Windows phone. While I'm unlikely to switch, I'd like to know more. Why is their offering superior?
We all know he could have a job at Wal-Mart, 7-11, or McDonald's within a few hours.
You obviously don't know anyone who works in that segment of the economy. None of those places are "always hiring," and most have backlogs of resumes to go through. Worse, having a resume with a good job history on it is poison for low-end jobs, where people assume that you'll be jumping ship at first chance for a better job more in line with what you've done. Speaking from experience, no one wants someone with 7 years of development experience and a fresh law degree to deliver their pizzas.
Plus, my friend who does work for Wal-mart? He'd be homeless too if he couldn't live with him Mom based on what they pay him in his eternally part-time position.
Did you somehow mistake me for praising China and Russia? They're terrible places from the perspective of freedom.
But the bigger issue is that none of the countries that supposedly love freedom will stand up for him. The choice for Snowden is (a) keep silent about abuses of our rights, (b) throw himself on a grenade by staying within arms reach of the US government, or (c) make his stand from a country which is even worse but which won't lock him up for it.
The least terrible choice from both the perspective of getting the word out and his own freedom was (c), but none of his choices were good. If you think there was an actual good choice for him, then speak up and stop trashing him for the one he did take. It's not like you put your skin on the line for freedom; you don't get to speak like you're talking from a higher moral position than him from the comfort of your chair.
Because [...] the media will be full of stories for months after you kill a human crew in deep space, whereas a failed unmanned mission makes a brief story on page ten for a day.
So what you're saying is that all we have to do to get the media to focus for months on science and exploration instead of salivating over war and celebrities is to sacrifice a few astronauts?
Can I sign up for the program? I'd consider that a noble use of my life in and of itself.
Edward Snowden must feel so proud of his newly adopted homeland.
Name a country from which he could reveal secrets about how the US government has been spying on its citizens and not get extradited and sent to jail which isn't on our "bad guys" list.
Yes, Snowden chose countries like China and Russia to make his stand from, but it's not like he had any other choices that would keep him from ending up like all the other whistleblowers this administration has gone after hard.
So far, there is no proof to demonstrates that CO2 has any negative effects on the atmosphere or the ecosystem.
None? If you have convinced yourself of that, then there is nothing that can be said to disprove it.
The infrared absorption profile of CO2 is well-known. So is the reaction of CO2 and water. If you still persist in believing that global warming and ocean acidification aren't real, then you have probably invested yourself heavily in that belief in spite of the evidence surrounding you. No amount of proof will satisfy a zealot.
It kind of puts the environmentalists in a bit of a clamor. They wont know which way to go with this
Not really. Sweeping environmental problems under the rug not only doesn't address the core issues but ignores that things have a way of slipping out from under the rug when no one's paying attention anymore.
Additionally, carbon sequestration is expensive and generates no sellable product. It's like dealing with mine tailings. As soon as a company no longer has to watch it to take care of accidental spills and leaks, they won't, leaving the government to pick up the bag.
Worse, one of the advantages of natural gas is that it's easy to transport and can be burned far from the source. How easy is it to capture carbon dioxide and then ship it all the way back to the fields to be sequestered? How much energy does that transportation take and how much does pumping it back into the ground take?
This is a loser of an idea. The only merit it has is as a fig leaf to justify more fracking, which only makes the problem worse.
"Oh dear, do my locutions confuse?"
Of course, I've done my best to structure my finances such that should either event occur, I have a bit of leeway on finding alternate employment but I know that's out of fashion these days.
It's nice to be a white-collar worker, isn't it? Not everyone really has the option of just up and leaving at a moments notice. Maybe they don't make enough to save beyond their expenses. Maybe there isn't a lot of alternative jobs for people in their position. Maybe there are, but the entire industry is rotten. "Firing" your company by yourself is just about as effective as boycotting its products by yourself. Employees and customers are more replaceable than you think.
Despite you trivializing the problems of others as "fashion," the quality of jobs supplied sinks to the level the market will bear. Without any form of worker pushback other than voluntary unemployment, companies can exploit the desperate at will. People who sneer at unions don't really understand what it was they had to sacrifice to get us up to the standards we have today, and if anything the past 30 years has shown the slow decline in labor conditions ever since they were removed from the picture. I don't think we'll ever go back to the days of "The Jungle," but much of the loss of the American middle class has been the destruction of well-paying blue collar jobs because of globalization undercutting single-nation unions by providing a cheaper, more easily exploitable labor supply.
Yes. Negotiations made under thread of crashing a company into the ground financially are much fairer.
Considering that the employer normally has the ability to fire at will anyone who makes too many waves at a company, yes, they are much fairer. Not nicer. Not more efficient. But fairer.
Well's Fargo bought them back in 2008, in 2011 the name "Wachovia" had earned too much negative press so they quietly discontinued the "Wachovia" name and brought them under the Well's Fargo branding. But other than some new paint on the branch locations and a little shuffling around at the top of the food chain, it's business as usual.
Which, of course, is hilarious to anyone who was a First Union customer before they bought Wachovia and then swapped names to shed the negative press around the First Union name. I think they're running out of banks to ruin the names of.
Actually, creatures with a slow metabolism have slower perception of time as well, as the title of the paper says. The European eel, blacknose shark, and tokay gecko had the slowest, third slowest, and fourth slowest reaction times out of all animals surveyed, and they're relatively small but have very slow metabolisms.
Snails probably aren't that much better.
Seniors see the world at blazing speeds... [s]itting in the left lane going ten under the speed limit while the world screams by.
Well sure. Everyone knows that children grow at an impressive rate. By the time they reach 18, they are twice as large as they were at age 2. Extrapolating from that, by the time they are in their late 60s, the average senior citizen is nearly 50 feet tall and thus perceives the world at a fraction of the rate we young people do. You can see it best in how slowly they change their opinions. From their lofty perspective, nothing has changed.
It's not just a simple matter of "add water & CO2, get more plants." Increasing temperatures start to kill plants and animals that aren't adapted to the new temperature range. That starts knocking out portions of the food web, and ecosystems start to collapse. If soil cover is eroded by a lack of protective plants, increased rain will actually worsen matters as it gets washed away in floods (which will be more frequent without the "evening" effect of mountain snowpacks as slow-release water reservoirs).
Millions of years under these conditions could eventually lead to more jungles, but in the short term, deserts would dominate.
Have you got a solution that doesn't involve regulation?
Depends on what you call regulation. A carbon tax-and-refund scheme would let the market find a solution by attaching an appropriate price to an externality. That would be significantly less government interference than a cap & trade or straight up permit-based regulation scheme.
However, if "tax and let the market figure it out" falls into the camp of (evil) regulation, then no. It turns out that the main reason laws exist is to keep people from doing stuff that benefits themselves at the expense of others who can't in turn do anything to stop it without resorting to violence or other worse behavior.
It's science. It's the discovery of a new species. It involves caves and exploration to depths previously unreached. It involves slimy creatures that the mainstream wouldn't love -- tiny little snails with no eyes and translucent shells and bodies that hitch a ride on bigger mammals to cover large distances. Where is your inner child such that you look at those pictures and feel no sense of wonder or joy about it?
If you can't find a single nerdy interest in all of this, and all you have to offer is some redneck nationalism, then I'd say to turn in your geek card, but you probably never had one in the first place.