Think. Are big cab companies among Hillary Clinton's big corporate donors? I'd say she's a lot more likely to get money from Uber than from non-existent multi-national cab companies.
Are you suggesting that cab companies are disqualified because they're not multi-national or that they have not been acting in collusive and predatory ways?
I have no love for Hillary Clinton and will not vote for her, but it's reasonable to talk about what the American workplace is going to look like if the corporations have their way. Maybe you're OK with taking in peoples' wash and sewing for low pay, no benefits or sick days, and a friendly "fuck you" when you're too old to work, but most people are not.
What would your opinion of Hillary have to do with whether she receives donations from ? Regarding what looks like a "not a living wage" argument about Uber/etc., do you envision any job anywhere that doesn't pay enough to live on by itself including benefits, sick days, and no pension/retirement? If all jobs are forced to pay above what would be considered the poverty line salary, what might you imagine would happen to prices of goods overall? Regarding low pay, no benefits/sick days, and no retirement, how do you suppose being a small business owner fits into that equation?
How, pray tell, are you going to regulate Chinese or other nations' platforms that are (just) outside of your territorial waters?
Related: regulating (punitively, not preventatively) the companies from your own countries that produce oil such that they outsource it to companies that are not under your country's legislative purview does exactly what for saving Gaia?
I'm all for environmental conscience but if you are going to settle for curb-stomping the companies you can get to in lieu of the ones you can't, does that make it an agenda rather than a strategy? What might you expect (economically speaking) the markets to do when this happens? Can you think of any other markets where capricious non-uniform regulations have resulted in unintended consequences?
I don't believe someone needs to die to warrant a bigger sentence. The fact is, this psychopath put many people in harms way and got their doors broken down and live guns pointed at them. The fact that nobody died is a miracle
If the Swat team response to an unverified phone call is to put people's lives at such severe risk as you describe, the problem is with the police, not the teenage idiot who placed the fake calls.
Let's say you have a guy you know likes baseball. You wanna SWAT him, because you don't like his hairdo. You call the police and in a very convincing bit of acting, claim (very distraught voice) that he has already beaten his son to death with a baseball bat and is threatening to beat his wife to death, too.
Or you know a guy that lives in South Carolina and has a Federal Firearms License, works at a shooting range, or just has a large collection of firearms, some on display over the mantle in view of the front windows/door. You call the police and again in a very convincing act, claim he is loading his guns and claiming he's going to head out in a few minutes to shoot up the capitol for taking down the confederate flag.
In situations where minutes can matter in saving a potential victim's life, and where you cannot control things like that guy's son playing with a toy M-16 in the dark or the first guy teaching his wife swing motions with a bat in the front lobby, would you suppose things might get misinterpreted as an imminent life-threatening situation by the police where they must make a potentially terminal decision based on purposefully misrepresented (but believable) information?
Here's the problem with that worldview: the police have to be right 100% of the time to fit your definition of "not evil," but you only have to be right once to claim they are evil, in a sort of pre-destined post-hoc-propter-hoc circle that just proves the GP's point. N'est-ce pas?
Your insinuation that it doesn't work that way everywhere else (just with less transparency and less ability to say anything about the people doing it) is illuminating.
When did learning about history or using historical figures, locations or groups in games or other activities become verboten? If we are to apply this crap objectively and consistently, then we need to make sure we ban everything that anyone anywhere ever could possibly be offended by, just so nobody suffers from undue loss of self-esteem or panic attacks or feel that their positions are not getting equal respect.
Books with any controversial name? BANNED TV shows that say certain trigger words? BANNED Cars named after people or places that someone fears? BANNED Documentaries about terrible events in history? BANNED
Where, pray tell, does it end? When did people lose all ability to process input on a rational and contextual basis?/smh
With all the regulations and civil litigation around termination, and articles on the psychological "harm" caused by being too honest with certain types of people (read: millennial special snowflake types), is it any wonder that companies that have to go through an act of congress to fire someone are more wary of hiring someone without a lot of verification? Consider also that since about the late '90s, when someone called you as a reference for someone, you could only say, "Yes, that person worked here on the dates specified." How else would a company hedge their bets?
HP did the exact same thing, but rather than using H1B people here in the US, they just completely outsourced everything to Foxconn, Lite-on, etc. Many of us in the PC/software industry have been training replacements since the end of the 20th century. Interestingly enough, it's the small shops where our skills are still valued. I suspect that's because small shops are still dynamic environments where the ability to think outside of the box and make qualitative judgements on a daily basis is valued, as opposed to entrenched organizations that have well-documented tools and processes that anyone with sufficient reading comprehension skills can follow step-by-step and get some work done.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled outrage.
I wonder: would the same people that advocated the "calling females 'bossy' = sexist" view use consistent logic and assert that calling males "aggressive" is code for "I'm basically unable to defend my own position, am losing the argument, and therefore must apply guile and ad hominem attacks to stand my ground?" Be honest, now.
Is how someone interprets your criticism of their work defined by how much face they stand to lose if they're wrong, regardless of whether the criticism is grounded in facts and experience?
...why does an OS "expire?" The only reason we spin OS releases as fast as we do today is for (a) new hardware support/bugfixes, and (b) security hole fixes. If your critical long-term project is air-gapped or ROM-based, why would it need patching?
1) People think it's fine for the government to subsidize some industry. 2) People who think the government should not subsidize industry.
Uh, nope. As someone lumped into your purported "group 2," there is a group 3: people who think government subsidies should have accountability, transparency, and strict rules against any subsidies going to someone related to a sitting member of any of the three branches of government.
It's not that "gubmint BAD!" it's inefficient, unaccountable, untouchable, too-big-to-fail government. We all understand some good things come out of government occasionally. I wonder what would happen if we applied the same regulatory fervor to the government's cash outlays as some desire we do with private industries. Then again, who pays the fine when government gets held accountable. Oh, right. The same small businesses and private individuals that can't get millions in loans and favorable land deals because they're not related to someone in D.C.
What system was in use in the US during the planning and design of the Apollo missions?
What system was in use in the US during WWII?
Need I go on?
The funny thing is that the US is already moving to support Metric units in lots of things, and we're getting better at "guesstimating" metric lengths as that happens. But apparently some people want to force the change to happen overnight rather than letting it gradually take over, like millions of people will die tomorrow if it doesn't happen. I wonder what agenda is at work here, since honest scientists/mathematicians/engineers realize that needlessly perturbing things when it's already evolving in the right direction absent critical need is counterproductive.
So, they want the government to force the minimums up higher to "living wages," but they don't think everything else will just inflate along with it? Everyone's salaries go up, too! Yay! Wait, groceries and gas just went up too! BOO! Whoa, the dollar is now worth 2 pesos? QUICK, CASH IN YOUR MONIES FROM ACAPULCO! Dude, where's my retirement savings?
That's a good phrase. I've purchased perhaps a third of the music I own because I heard a song (or snippet of a song) in a video or just tripped across something I liked while surfing youtube. "This video has been muted due to an audio copyright claim by FuckMeI'mAnIdiot Publishing" would seem to be quite as self-defeating as normal folks claim.
You know what I've learned after all these years. I may not know "what works", but I sure do know what won't.
Gosh, you just said one of the things I dislike the most about the old timers. They tried something, they failed at it, and the conclusion they bring to the table is unpossible!
To be sure, by all means yes, I want to hear about what went wrong the last time around, but one failed attempt does not prove much.
As I remind them every time, the real lesson they bring is that, if we were to do exactly what you did, back at that moment in time, we would fail... likely.
Instead I refocus the meeting on whether it really is different this time around: has technology evolved? the market place matured? are we architecting the solution differently? better team? etc./rant
And you just made one of the rookie I'm-a-manager/architect-hear-me-roar ASSumptions that I detest as a rational individual: you put up your own strawmen any time you run across someone that sounds like that guy you disagreed with but weren't able to intelligently understand and work with to arrive at a common understanding and path forward.
We had a crotchety old bastard at my office a few years ago. People would dismiss him out of hand because he was gruff and unsympathetic to the care and feeding of the youths' fragile self-esteem; i.e. he would call a stupid idea a stupid idea. Turns out after a couple of failed efforts at a few things that he was exactly right on all counts. And the projects that he worked on that went well, went well because people trusted his knowledge enough to discuss his answers from a position of accept-then-attempt-to-disprove rather than your-presentation-sucks-we-aren't-listening-to-you-neener-neener.
So, yeah, I'll take a competent, gruff old asshole over an inexperienced and self-important noobie any day. Related: always strikes me as ironic how the Social Justice Warrior/Bleeding Heart type tends to be so dismissive of the Old Bastards in modern western societies, *in spite of the preponderance of evidence of their competency.*/smh
I see where Oreskes says politically-driven science isn't inherently bad. I wholeheartedly agree. But. People tend to make the assumption (and you know where that leads) that politically-driven science is wholesome and rewarding, whereas financially-driven science isn't.
Thing is, if either fail the tests of actual, you know, science, then they don't deserve the appellation. Such tests being reproducibility, peer review, publishing the actual data for independent analysis, etc. If you're not willing to share how the data for a test is "manipulated" or "corrected" or "adjusted," then you guessed it -- your results are going to be suspect. Especially so when you have enough examples of "government science" getting the benefit of the doubt when it affects citizens, but "independent science" having to go through government approval before anything can come from it.
I'll go ahead and name names: I used to work at cisco. I have said many times that I could walk down the hallway at any random cisco san jose building and for most of the day, not hear a single word spoken in english (in hallways or breakrooms).... if I go thru an interview and hear 'not a cultural match' one more time, I swear to zeus I'm going to go postal. I'm nearly at the end of my rope, here....
"Not a match for culture" from a group that has a similar cultural background to yourself is code for "We think you're an asshole."
Reading comprehension not your strong suit? Just sayin'...
I have a Samsung XP941 (the "proprietary" drive that you can easily buy) and a regular 840 Pro in my desktop. You can benchmark the difference easily, but I don't notice it, at all, in day to day operation, in my particular use-cases; yours might noticeably benefit from it depending on what you're doing with the system.
Depends on how that money is spent. In a more socialist setting it would most likely be spent on a social program to help take away some of the cost of living on the low income population thus freeing up the money to spend on the increased prices of the companies... Even someone with a rudimentary understanding of economics knows that government spending does help to spur the economy if spent on the right thing.
Now if they take that money and blow it on military invasions and other money sinks with low RFI for the population, then it does hurt overall. Bottom line turns into, which ass hole do you distrust less the businesses or the government?
There's a variable missing from your equations: Government Efficiency (or lack thereof). Self-motivated people are almost always going to be more efficient at figuring out how to do things than a government that's spending everyone else's money, at least for governments that don't have balanced-budget and/or term-limited constitutions. Add the additional variable of "Social Justice" into the metrics and it gets even more messy.
If a "rich" person spends 500x what a poor person spends at their shop, and giving them a deep discount still means you made 40x the profit you'd have made from 5 poor people, would you consider that injustice or another form of marketing success?
We don't need independent verification and reproducibility anymore. The science is settled because we have consensus.
Yes, I realize that's a bit of cherry-picking examples but all too often logical fallacies are used to justify when these things happen. I'd suggest it's an ethics crisis rather than a science crisis.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you suggesting that cab companies are disqualified because they're not multi-national or that they have not been acting in collusive and predatory ways?
What would your opinion of Hillary have to do with whether she receives donations from ? Regarding what looks like a "not a living wage" argument about Uber/etc., do you envision any job anywhere that doesn't pay enough to live on by itself including benefits, sick days, and no pension/retirement? If all jobs are forced to pay above what would be considered the poverty line salary, what might you imagine would happen to prices of goods overall? Regarding low pay, no benefits/sick days, and no retirement, how do you suppose being a small business owner fits into that equation?
How, pray tell, are you going to regulate Chinese or other nations' platforms that are (just) outside of your territorial waters?
Related: regulating (punitively, not preventatively) the companies from your own countries that produce oil such that they outsource it to companies that are not under your country's legislative purview does exactly what for saving Gaia?
I'm all for environmental conscience but if you are going to settle for curb-stomping the companies you can get to in lieu of the ones you can't, does that make it an agenda rather than a strategy? What might you expect (economically speaking) the markets to do when this happens? Can you think of any other markets where capricious non-uniform regulations have resulted in unintended consequences?
Let's say you have a guy you know likes baseball. You wanna SWAT him, because you don't like his hairdo. You call the police and in a very convincing bit of acting, claim (very distraught voice) that he has already beaten his son to death with a baseball bat and is threatening to beat his wife to death, too.
Or you know a guy that lives in South Carolina and has a Federal Firearms License, works at a shooting range, or just has a large collection of firearms, some on display over the mantle in view of the front windows/door. You call the police and again in a very convincing act, claim he is loading his guns and claiming he's going to head out in a few minutes to shoot up the capitol for taking down the confederate flag.
In situations where minutes can matter in saving a potential victim's life, and where you cannot control things like that guy's son playing with a toy M-16 in the dark or the first guy teaching his wife swing motions with a bat in the front lobby, would you suppose things might get misinterpreted as an imminent life-threatening situation by the police where they must make a potentially terminal decision based on purposefully misrepresented (but believable) information?
Here's the problem with that worldview: the police have to be right 100% of the time to fit your definition of "not evil," but you only have to be right once to claim they are evil, in a sort of pre-destined post-hoc-propter-hoc circle that just proves the GP's point. N'est-ce pas?
Your insinuation that it doesn't work that way everywhere else (just with less transparency and less ability to say anything about the people doing it) is illuminating.
When did learning about history or using historical figures, locations or groups in games or other activities become verboten? If we are to apply this crap objectively and consistently, then we need to make sure we ban everything that anyone anywhere ever could possibly be offended by, just so nobody suffers from undue loss of self-esteem or panic attacks or feel that their positions are not getting equal respect.
Books with any controversial name? BANNED
TV shows that say certain trigger words? BANNED
Cars named after people or places that someone fears? BANNED
Documentaries about terrible events in history? BANNED
Where, pray tell, does it end? When did people lose all ability to process input on a rational and contextual basis? /smh
With all the regulations and civil litigation around termination, and articles on the psychological "harm" caused by being too honest with certain types of people (read: millennial special snowflake types), is it any wonder that companies that have to go through an act of congress to fire someone are more wary of hiring someone without a lot of verification? Consider also that since about the late '90s, when someone called you as a reference for someone, you could only say, "Yes, that person worked here on the dates specified." How else would a company hedge their bets?
Bottom right -> Settings -> Advanced Search.
Not sure if serious or just derp.
HP did the exact same thing, but rather than using H1B people here in the US, they just completely outsourced everything to Foxconn, Lite-on, etc. Many of us in the PC/software industry have been training replacements since the end of the 20th century. Interestingly enough, it's the small shops where our skills are still valued. I suspect that's because small shops are still dynamic environments where the ability to think outside of the box and make qualitative judgements on a daily basis is valued, as opposed to entrenched organizations that have well-documented tools and processes that anyone with sufficient reading comprehension skills can follow step-by-step and get some work done.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled outrage.
I wonder: would the same people that advocated the "calling females 'bossy' = sexist" view use consistent logic and assert that calling males "aggressive" is code for "I'm basically unable to defend my own position, am losing the argument, and therefore must apply guile and ad hominem attacks to stand my ground?" Be honest, now.
Is how someone interprets your criticism of their work defined by how much face they stand to lose if they're wrong, regardless of whether the criticism is grounded in facts and experience?
...why does an OS "expire?" The only reason we spin OS releases as fast as we do today is for (a) new hardware support/bugfixes, and (b) security hole fixes. If your critical long-term project is air-gapped or ROM-based, why would it need patching?
Uh, nope. As someone lumped into your purported "group 2," there is a group 3: people who think government subsidies should have accountability, transparency, and strict rules against any subsidies going to someone related to a sitting member of any of the three branches of government.
It's not that "gubmint BAD!" it's inefficient, unaccountable, untouchable, too-big-to-fail government. We all understand some good things come out of government occasionally. I wonder what would happen if we applied the same regulatory fervor to the government's cash outlays as some desire we do with private industries. Then again, who pays the fine when government gets held accountable. Oh, right. The same small businesses and private individuals that can't get millions in loans and favorable land deals because they're not related to someone in D.C.
What system was in use in the US during the planning and design of the Apollo missions?
What system was in use in the US during WWII?
Need I go on?
The funny thing is that the US is already moving to support Metric units in lots of things, and we're getting better at "guesstimating" metric lengths as that happens. But apparently some people want to force the change to happen overnight rather than letting it gradually take over, like millions of people will die tomorrow if it doesn't happen. I wonder what agenda is at work here, since honest scientists/mathematicians/engineers realize that needlessly perturbing things when it's already evolving in the right direction absent critical need is counterproductive.
So, they want the government to force the minimums up higher to "living wages," but they don't think everything else will just inflate along with it? Everyone's salaries go up, too! Yay! Wait, groceries and gas just went up too! BOO! Whoa, the dollar is now worth 2 pesos? QUICK, CASH IN YOUR MONIES FROM ACAPULCO! Dude, where's my retirement savings?
That's a good phrase. I've purchased perhaps a third of the music I own because I heard a song (or snippet of a song) in a video or just tripped across something I liked while surfing youtube. "This video has been muted due to an audio copyright claim by FuckMeI'mAnIdiot Publishing" would seem to be quite as self-defeating as normal folks claim.
And you just made one of the rookie I'm-a-manager/architect-hear-me-roar ASSumptions that I detest as a rational individual: you put up your own strawmen any time you run across someone that sounds like that guy you disagreed with but weren't able to intelligently understand and work with to arrive at a common understanding and path forward.
We had a crotchety old bastard at my office a few years ago. People would dismiss him out of hand because he was gruff and unsympathetic to the care and feeding of the youths' fragile self-esteem; i.e. he would call a stupid idea a stupid idea. Turns out after a couple of failed efforts at a few things that he was exactly right on all counts. And the projects that he worked on that went well, went well because people trusted his knowledge enough to discuss his answers from a position of accept-then-attempt-to-disprove rather than your-presentation-sucks-we-aren't-listening-to-you-neener-neener.
So, yeah, I'll take a competent, gruff old asshole over an inexperienced and self-important noobie any day. Related: always strikes me as ironic how the Social Justice Warrior/Bleeding Heart type tends to be so dismissive of the Old Bastards in modern western societies, *in spite of the preponderance of evidence of their competency.* /smh
I see where Oreskes says politically-driven science isn't inherently bad. I wholeheartedly agree. But. People tend to make the assumption (and you know where that leads) that politically-driven science is wholesome and rewarding, whereas financially-driven science isn't.
Thing is, if either fail the tests of actual, you know, science, then they don't deserve the appellation. Such tests being reproducibility, peer review, publishing the actual data for independent analysis, etc. If you're not willing to share how the data for a test is "manipulated" or "corrected" or "adjusted," then you guessed it -- your results are going to be suspect. Especially so when you have enough examples of "government science" getting the benefit of the doubt when it affects citizens, but "independent science" having to go through government approval before anything can come from it.
lolwut? Whoever wrote that must not be playing any popular online console games.
Don't be disingenuous. "Designed" in this context meaning "originally intended." You aren't perhaps an H1B candidate, are you? ;)
Reading comprehension not your strong suit? Just sayin'...
Hulu has captions. Amazon Prime Video has captions. It's not like you're being completely denied the joys of interwebs TV.
How, pray tell, would a gas pump identify you as gay or Jewish or atheist and then refuse service? How also would a supermarket identify your beliefs?
Fixed that for ya.
There's a variable missing from your equations: Government Efficiency (or lack thereof). Self-motivated people are almost always going to be more efficient at figuring out how to do things than a government that's spending everyone else's money, at least for governments that don't have balanced-budget and/or term-limited constitutions. Add the additional variable of "Social Justice" into the metrics and it gets even more messy.
If a "rich" person spends 500x what a poor person spends at their shop, and giving them a deep discount still means you made 40x the profit you'd have made from 5 poor people, would you consider that injustice or another form of marketing success?
We don't need independent verification and reproducibility anymore. The science is settled because we have consensus.
Yes, I realize that's a bit of cherry-picking examples but all too often logical fallacies are used to justify when these things happen. I'd suggest it's an ethics crisis rather than a science crisis.