Yes, yes, we can always keep going on and on about the same circular nonsense arguments about who started it. Where does it say that we in the West have a God-given right to go to other countries and sort out their problems? That is nothing more than "Might is Right"-thinking, and it is shameful in the first place. But even if we think we should, we really haven't done a very good job of it in the past, and the US have done particularly badly: supporting dictators more often than not, using military or economic force to impose your will on other nations against the will of the populations and so on. And of course, being so bloody arrogant, oozing smug entitlement all over the place. Yeah, it is easy to see why the West in general and the US in particular are so often despised in those countries. It is a matter of how you behave - it is, metaphorically speaking, the way you smile broadly, but it doesn't quite reach the eyes. People see America as insincere: as glib bullies.
And it breaks my heart, it really does, because all the Americans that I know in person are such nice, generous and sincere people. You guys need to get your government and your big corporations under control.
Have you ever been able to trust it? I doubt it, so nothing has really changed in this regard and the timing of this question seems partisan.
Partisan? Probably - is that not allowed now? But I suspect what you mean is "I don't like it when my side is being scrutinised" - I don't recall anybody from the Trump camp having a problem when it came to attacking Obama, or indeed anything else they didn't like, mostly without reference to observable facts. In this situation, I think it is highly relevant to question the veracity of anything that comes out of Trump's team - they keep contradicting things they have said, and which are on tape; that's your observable facts for you.
Apart from that - it is never wise to trust data from just one source. It is easy to get things wrong, even without malice, which is why scientists keep scrutinising data over and over. It applies to news as well; if your favourite news media brings a story, it is a good idea to go and check it in a few mainstream media that you don't really like. If they carry the same story, then there is a fair chance that you can rely on, as facts, the parts where the reports overlap.
Exactly. China has spent the last several decades making friends in the developing countries in Asia, Africa and South America, before going on the charm offensive in particularly Europe. I work for a global organisation, and have colleagues from Pakistan, who can't stop heaping praise on China, and you can understand why. America, they say, comes in and behave like colonial masters, ordering them about, whereas China help them achieve things they need and which they take pride in - like a big highway from China to Pakistan, apparently, and a large seaport (if I remember correctly). Yes, everybody does understand that this also serves China's interests, but that is sort of obvious, isn't it?
The point is - China are in a good position to take over from America, not just in APAC, but more or less globally; and probably in a much less threatening way than the US. A few years of Trump will help China enormously - when I talked to my Chinese acquaintances about Trump before the election, they all hoped that he would be elected - and it was not because they thought he will "make America great again". Brexit is another thing that they are quite happy about - it weakens both EU and UK, so they will be more open to making deals with China.
If we forcefully bring manufacturing jobs back here, it means that workers and business owners have to pay extra for goods due to the salaries of the workers in those jobs.
Unless those salaries come down, of course. If the choices are that you either accept lower pay or everybody lose their jobs, what do you do? How can you fight that? Maybe there will be more jobs, but there will be less for each worker.
Well, I heard an anecdote about Einstein many years ago - he was writing one of his articles about GR and wanted to make it understandable to the general public, so he read it to his granddaughter (or something like that), who was only about 5 years old, thinking, if she can understand it, then of course everybody else would as well. And, amazingly, this young child, who was playing happily with her stuff while listening to her nice graddad, would yes "Yes" every time he asked if she understood what had read out. I think it is a very sweet story;-)
Another saying that I have seen attributed to Einsteing is, that you should always strive to make things as simple as possible, but no simpler. GR is a good example of this - it is a remarkably simple and elegant theory, and you really couldn't make it simpler; but it is still bloody complicated, not least because the toolset required (differential geometry on a smooth manifold with a Lorentzian metric as well as a volume form) is rather complicated in itself. C++, I suppose, compared to C, is like GR compared to Newtonian Mechanics; it gets really, really crinkly around the edges, not because the idea is unsound, but the subject just is that complicated, when you pursue it - and you can't make it simpler without losing important bits.
This has probably less to do with where I live and more to do with the thicker walls on my current house compared to the house I grew up in.
So, given that we don't see any citations around, let's pit anecdotes against each other. In my experience, birds only ever fly into stationary, opaque objects, if they are ill or so young that they still haven't mastered all the details of landing on a twig. I have lived in the countryside for a few decades as well as in the city, I have spent a fair bit of time outdoors and I have had bird hit my windows from time to time. Of course, in Europe we tend to build farms out of stone or bricks, so it would have to be an ostrich for us to hear it, but even so, you would expect to find them occasionally. I suspect, if you have been hearing something go bump against your farm house, it might just easily have been something else, such as a rat making a noise on the roof or whatever - if it happened all that often, people probably wouldn't come running outside every time to make sure that this was in fact a bird. The thing is - if you sit inside what is effectively a big wooden box, then it is quite hard to tell exactly where a noise comes from, but it makes for a good anecdote to decide it's a bird: "Oh those birds out here, its like a hail storm".
I'm only guessing, but I doubt Oracle will simply kill off Solaris - there is a lot of good stuff in there, and they do, among other things, sell a ZFS based disk appliance, as far as I remember. I wouldn't be at all surprised if that runs Solaris. But I think the market for proprietary UNIXes as general OSes is all but finished, since the open source ones are now so good.
The existence of technology requires science, unless you're talking about the simple tool use we share with other animals, and - brace yourself for this - climate change is and area of science, it really is. Climate scientists, unlike climate change deniers - follow the facts, even when they don't please them by confirming their hopes. Climate change deniers, on the other hand, reject all data that they don't like, no matter how strong, while accepting even the most tenuous hint that offers them comfort. Who is most likely to get to the truth?
I'm sure if you look at the WIkipedia article it has said this for at least several years...
Talk about Fake News.
Yes, perhaps it is better if you talk about fake news. This, however, is about science. I don't think I have read this particular article, but it has been mentioned in different places, and what is new, is the discovery that a female shark that has previously reproduced sexually, has been found to reproduce asexually several years later, which is a first. We had previously seen female sharks that grow up in captivity without males, can do this, but it was not obvious that this could also happen if they had mated in the past - it isn't unreasonable to think that mating might have triggered some mechanism - hormones or whatever - that would make asexual reproduction impossible.
Having alcoholic parents is really sad (I'm from UK, where pissed means drunk).
I'm really not a bad person, I just got used to saying this stuff because I thought it was funny, but it's not funny, it's hurtful and makes me look really stupid. Again, I apologize, and I will try to be a better person in the future.
Well, perhaps you aren't, and being able to apologise is admirable. A tip: stop posting as an AC - that way you will be likely to invest more thought in what you say, and as a result, people may start modding you up. And enter all discussions with a willingness to admit your mistakes and learn from them; that is the scientific way, and anyone who wants to see him-/herself as a rational, thinking person, should do this.
Do we really think Putin is all about freedom of speech, and welcomes political opposition - that nothing is more important to him than a fair and balanced democracy, even if it goes against him? I don't, to be honest. I think Putin feels he can afford to tolerant, and that it profits him in this case. I suspect that Snowden isn't really all that influential in Russia - people who criticise the nation of their origin are often regarded with some scepticism in other countries; I know this from experience: one of the first reactions you get is not "You hate our enemy, so you must be a friend" - it is more likely to be "Why do you hate your own country?". But he is obviously useful to the Russian Intelligence Services, and he can act as a showcase - their pet system critic - as long as he is harmless to Putin or Russia.
I think a very significant accomplice in this 'crime' is the film industry, who very rarely produce anything that you would want to watch twice, really. Maybe I'm just too critical, but I can't really think of anything out of Hollywood that I cared to watch more than once - well, maybe there are a couple from long ago, but what I nearly always find lacking is something that is a bit original and feels convincing; regrettably, what you mostly get is a rehash of the same, old plot with a bit more in the way of spectacular (but strangely unconvincing) effects. That being the case, why would you actually want to have a stack of DVDs cluttering some shelf? Netflix and similar are perfect for this: you watch a film once and forget about it; incidentally, cinema is well suited for this as well, plus you don't need to have a spectacular home-cinema taking up space. This is probably why cinemas haven't disappeared, and why they may be seeing a bit of a renaissance atm.
This effort by ISIS is a pittance in comparison. BTW, has anyone considered that it might be preferable to address their grievances rather than just bomb them?
I think people like daesh have put themselves into a position where they no longer are relevant to that discussion. I mean - do they think they address the abuses of the West and their many inequalities and wrongdoing by blowing up defenceless people in Syria and Iraq? Or by claiming responsibility for whichever sickening atrocity against women and children is carried out by deranged killers? Whatever anybody is going to do to address the grievances of the oppressed people of the world, it is clear that daesh will have to be eradicated, so don't try to play that card again, unless you want to be taken for an idiot.
And just so it is clear: putting people in a cage, dousing them with fuel and burning them alive, or raping children, or any of the other things that followers of daesh do, those are not "pittances", no matter what somebody else is doing, even if the Americans were committing war crimes on a grand scale. You can't excuse your crimes by saying "But they started it".
Those who are less likely to hold back what they are saying are more likely to not hold back what they are thinking. Big surprise.
A slightly subtle point that I think both you and the OP are missing is that honesty is not quite the same as naively or spontaneously expressing whatever goes through your head. I won't provide an example, but it is fully possible to be honest and considerate at the same time, for example, just like it is possible to express even severe anger and dissatisfaction without shouting or getting into a fight.
"The UNIX way" was to have multiple, not quite compatible, complete operating systems from multiple vendors such as HPUX, Solaris, IRIX, etc. Porting your software between those was a considerable effort, and in fact a whole standardisation body (posix) has sprung up around efforts to make those systems at least nominally compatible. And in later years, the Linux way was quite similar, with LSB attempting to keep distributions at least nominally compatible with each other, but the effort of porting an application from one distribution to another still going by the name of "porting".
You know, I have worked for something like 30 years as a UNIX developer, later sysadmin - HP-UX, AIX, SunOS, DECOS, Linux (most HW architectures: POWER, zArch, Intel/AMD, SPARC, etc), even USS (UNIX System Services under MVS) - and the one thing that stands out to me is how easy it is, in practise to move from one to the other. As developer, I was part of a team that wrote C code which was compiled to all our UNIX systems, and while there were one or two quirks to work around (most notably HP-UX's tendency to issue warnings about FUTURE errors, figure that), it was remarkably easy. Sysadmin is even easier - there is a large overlap, and the minor differences there are, are easily mastered - unlike what you find on Windows between versions.
I'm not a big fan of Trump, but if he actually delivers on this campaign promise (even if it's just scrawling his signature on the bill and then taking all the credit in speeches) that will be a good thing for me and most employed people on slashdot.
There's no doubt that he can push through a number of short-term fixes that make him look good, and maybe it will create more jobs for Americans, at least in the beginning; but isn't this what was criticised severely during the early years of financial crisis - and still is: that there were strong incentives for the executives to make a quick buck and then cut your losses and run, leaving the fall-out to those left behind?
Just to take an example: Trump wants to abandon everything that has been done to protect the environment - he wants to introduce more coal burning, he wants to scrap the Paris agreement and drill for oil in the Arctic etc. Apart from the damage this will cause to America's environment and the health of Americans, down the line, it will also mean that Europe, China and India will continue to get ahead of America when it comes to renewable energy technology, environmental protection etc, and they will build up sustainable industries on top of this, which will provide sustainable jobs etc, while America in years to come will be forced to go and buy this from outside, when a future government finally decides to come to their senses.
Is there any way this is a bad thing? H1B was supposed to be for bringing in essential foreign talent. If a company isn't willing to pay $100k per year plus the various expenses, whoever they are bringing it must not have been all that talented.
I don't know - but I suspect it is not as simple as you make it sound. In many countries in Europe - especially in Scandinavia - there has traditionally been rather stiff rules about minimum wages, and it as meant that the business climate simply wasn't as attractive as in many other countries. The was one of the many contributing factors that pushed up income taxes and foreign borrowing for many years, and the attempts at getting the rules loosened up have caused social unrest, strikes etc. I'm not against minimum wages, but you have to have a well thought out plan so you are prepared to tackle the consequences. And I have seen no indication that Trump has a plan - his stance on climate change consists mostly of ignoring science and walking away from international agreements; it's a bit like keeping warm by pissing yourself - it works, but only briefly, and then you have a more pressing problem to deal with.
- of those who criticise what they don't understand and can't be bothered to learn. One of the central duties of any government is to protect the nation against things that harm the economy, and sucking capital out of the country does harm the economy. That is why people everywhere are rightfully outraged when rich people do everything they can to avoid paying taxes, for example. You may call it petty if you wish, but when you have some rich celebrity racing down motorways they carefully avoid contributing to at twice the speed limit in toy cars that cost millions each, then it is no wonder that people feel something is wrong. This is true in UK - and it is no less true just because it is China. In my view, these parasites should be flayed and rolled in salt.
A surefire sign of the unthinking activist is their automatic rejection of any real-world solution to the carbon problem.
I don't think there is all that much difference between the doomsdayers on the one hand and the conspiracy theorist deniers on the other. Both sides have decided on their 'conclusion' a priori and mangle the available data to fit. The only real sceptics in all of this are the climate scientists; scepticism is at the very core of what science is. Blindly denying the observable facts - which both dommsdayers and deniers do - has nothing to do with being sceptical or thinking critically; it is nothing more than blind faith and represents the extreme of gullibility.
That said, it makes good sense to listen to the balanced, scientific viewpoints that are presented by climate science: humans do cause climate change, it is getting dangerous now, and we can actually do something constructive about it, not just in terms of short term mitigation, but also in terms of changing the stupid and wasteful habits that are a significant part of the reasons why we have climate change.
There is probably a tiny bit more to it than that; nothing new in running against an application server, of course, but I suppose the real story might be that networking on mobiles is now considered mature and cheap enough for this architecture to be viable. And, I don't think you can equate www with "application servers".
That's settled. The only thing in "science" ever to be "settled".
And you got modded up, and this will get modded down - because HERETIC!, errr, DENIER!
No, not really; no science is settled in the sense that it will never be scrutinised and probed again. AGW is only settled in the sense that although the scientists are constantly doing exactly what I said above, they don't find major weaknesses. To put it into context: anthropogenic climate change doesn't come out of thin air and a desire for funding; it is the result of work with models, and not just any old model. These climate models are based on the same physical theories that are used for a very wide range of other models; not just weather forecasting, but all kinds of models to do with fluid flow, I'll bet (I'm not a physicist, but I'm sure somebody who is will confirm this). So, if you want to dispute the climate models, you will have to tread carefully - you'll have to explain exactly why climate models are invalid, when all the other models built on the same science are valid.
this is what modern science is reduced to, old theories joined to faddish techs that can be easily trailered to fit the theory.
No, this is what science has always been: chasing existing theories, testing them from different angles, trying to find weak points. Only a vanishingly small part of scientific discovery is about making a huge, new discovery. But what we see here, and what you are complaining about is really the poor journalism that tries to inflate good, but humdrum scientific results and make a sexy sounding headline out of it. And once again it has served its purpose: to attract clicks to slashdot's website, which translates into advertising revenue. From their point of view scientific accuracy only matters in as much as it increases revenue - they don't care if the clicks come from real scientists and engineers or clueless teenagers.
I don't think the popularity is all that interesting; it is much more worthwhile to look at the usefulness of a language for the job at hand. For numerical programming, FORTRAN has always had a huge following, simply because it was and still is very good for that purpose. Same goes for COBOL and the handling of administrative datayou wouldn't write a compiler or a weather model in COBOL, but then you probably wouldn't want to write payroll application in FORTRAN, lisp, C or similar; you could, but it wouldn't make a lot of sense if you already have most of your codebase in COBOL. And so on.
C is still one of the best, general-purpose languages there are: the syntax is simple, yet it allows the programmer to easily use nearly any facility available in the HW. Java has grown in importance because the applications that are needed now are different: optimisation for speed and/or size is no longer a major issue, but portability is; also, the Java environment has implemented a very comprehensive set of standards for things like database trnasactions (JPA), security (JAAS) and just about anything else you need in browser based enterprise applications, which means you don't have to speculate about how to do this or which libraries suit your purpose best. You just follow the standards, and that is hugely attractive. Some day we won't need to develop so many new things in that environment, and Java will become less popular.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, yes, we can always keep going on and on about the same circular nonsense arguments about who started it. Where does it say that we in the West have a God-given right to go to other countries and sort out their problems? That is nothing more than "Might is Right"-thinking, and it is shameful in the first place. But even if we think we should, we really haven't done a very good job of it in the past, and the US have done particularly badly: supporting dictators more often than not, using military or economic force to impose your will on other nations against the will of the populations and so on. And of course, being so bloody arrogant, oozing smug entitlement all over the place. Yeah, it is easy to see why the West in general and the US in particular are so often despised in those countries. It is a matter of how you behave - it is, metaphorically speaking, the way you smile broadly, but it doesn't quite reach the eyes. People see America as insincere: as glib bullies.
And it breaks my heart, it really does, because all the Americans that I know in person are such nice, generous and sincere people. You guys need to get your government and your big corporations under control.
Have you ever been able to trust it? I doubt it, so nothing has really changed in this regard and the timing of this question seems partisan.
Partisan? Probably - is that not allowed now? But I suspect what you mean is "I don't like it when my side is being scrutinised" - I don't recall anybody from the Trump camp having a problem when it came to attacking Obama, or indeed anything else they didn't like, mostly without reference to observable facts. In this situation, I think it is highly relevant to question the veracity of anything that comes out of Trump's team - they keep contradicting things they have said, and which are on tape; that's your observable facts for you.
Apart from that - it is never wise to trust data from just one source. It is easy to get things wrong, even without malice, which is why scientists keep scrutinising data over and over. It applies to news as well; if your favourite news media brings a story, it is a good idea to go and check it in a few mainstream media that you don't really like. If they carry the same story, then there is a fair chance that you can rely on, as facts, the parts where the reports overlap.
Exactly. China has spent the last several decades making friends in the developing countries in Asia, Africa and South America, before going on the charm offensive in particularly Europe. I work for a global organisation, and have colleagues from Pakistan, who can't stop heaping praise on China, and you can understand why. America, they say, comes in and behave like colonial masters, ordering them about, whereas China help them achieve things they need and which they take pride in - like a big highway from China to Pakistan, apparently, and a large seaport (if I remember correctly). Yes, everybody does understand that this also serves China's interests, but that is sort of obvious, isn't it?
The point is - China are in a good position to take over from America, not just in APAC, but more or less globally; and probably in a much less threatening way than the US. A few years of Trump will help China enormously - when I talked to my Chinese acquaintances about Trump before the election, they all hoped that he would be elected - and it was not because they thought he will "make America great again". Brexit is another thing that they are quite happy about - it weakens both EU and UK, so they will be more open to making deals with China.
If we forcefully bring manufacturing jobs back here, it means that workers and business owners have to pay extra for goods due to the salaries of the workers in those jobs.
Unless those salaries come down, of course. If the choices are that you either accept lower pay or everybody lose their jobs, what do you do? How can you fight that? Maybe there will be more jobs, but there will be less for each worker.
Well, I heard an anecdote about Einstein many years ago - he was writing one of his articles about GR and wanted to make it understandable to the general public, so he read it to his granddaughter (or something like that), who was only about 5 years old, thinking, if she can understand it, then of course everybody else would as well. And, amazingly, this young child, who was playing happily with her stuff while listening to her nice graddad, would yes "Yes" every time he asked if she understood what had read out. I think it is a very sweet story ;-)
Another saying that I have seen attributed to Einsteing is, that you should always strive to make things as simple as possible, but no simpler. GR is a good example of this - it is a remarkably simple and elegant theory, and you really couldn't make it simpler; but it is still bloody complicated, not least because the toolset required (differential geometry on a smooth manifold with a Lorentzian metric as well as a volume form) is rather complicated in itself. C++, I suppose, compared to C, is like GR compared to Newtonian Mechanics; it gets really, really crinkly around the edges, not because the idea is unsound, but the subject just is that complicated, when you pursue it - and you can't make it simpler without losing important bits.
This has probably less to do with where I live and more to do with the thicker walls on my current house compared to the house I grew up in.
So, given that we don't see any citations around, let's pit anecdotes against each other. In my experience, birds only ever fly into stationary, opaque objects, if they are ill or so young that they still haven't mastered all the details of landing on a twig. I have lived in the countryside for a few decades as well as in the city, I have spent a fair bit of time outdoors and I have had bird hit my windows from time to time. Of course, in Europe we tend to build farms out of stone or bricks, so it would have to be an ostrich for us to hear it, but even so, you would expect to find them occasionally. I suspect, if you have been hearing something go bump against your farm house, it might just easily have been something else, such as a rat making a noise on the roof or whatever - if it happened all that often, people probably wouldn't come running outside every time to make sure that this was in fact a bird. The thing is - if you sit inside what is effectively a big wooden box, then it is quite hard to tell exactly where a noise comes from, but it makes for a good anecdote to decide it's a bird: "Oh those birds out here, its like a hail storm".
I feel like the marble was just set in motion on our collective roulette wheel.
All things considered, wouldn't it be Russian roulette?
I'm only guessing, but I doubt Oracle will simply kill off Solaris - there is a lot of good stuff in there, and they do, among other things, sell a ZFS based disk appliance, as far as I remember. I wouldn't be at all surprised if that runs Solaris. But I think the market for proprietary UNIXes as general OSes is all but finished, since the open source ones are now so good.
The existence of technology requires science, unless you're talking about the simple tool use we share with other animals, and - brace yourself for this - climate change is and area of science, it really is. Climate scientists, unlike climate change deniers - follow the facts, even when they don't please them by confirming their hopes. Climate change deniers, on the other hand, reject all data that they don't like, no matter how strong, while accepting even the most tenuous hint that offers them comfort. Who is most likely to get to the truth?
WTF? This has been known for decades.
I'm sure if you look at the WIkipedia article it has said this for at least several years...
Talk about Fake News.
Yes, perhaps it is better if you talk about fake news. This, however, is about science. I don't think I have read this particular article, but it has been mentioned in different places, and what is new, is the discovery that a female shark that has previously reproduced sexually, has been found to reproduce asexually several years later, which is a first. We had previously seen female sharks that grow up in captivity without males, can do this, but it was not obvious that this could also happen if they had mated in the past - it isn't unreasonable to think that mating might have triggered some mechanism - hormones or whatever - that would make asexual reproduction impossible.
...now she's pissed...
Having alcoholic parents is really sad (I'm from UK, where pissed means drunk).
I'm really not a bad person, I just got used to saying this stuff because I thought it was funny, but it's not funny, it's hurtful and makes me look really stupid. Again, I apologize, and I will try to be a better person in the future.
Well, perhaps you aren't, and being able to apologise is admirable. A tip: stop posting as an AC - that way you will be likely to invest more thought in what you say, and as a result, people may start modding you up. And enter all discussions with a willingness to admit your mistakes and learn from them; that is the scientific way, and anyone who wants to see him-/herself as a rational, thinking person, should do this.
Do we really think Putin is all about freedom of speech, and welcomes political opposition - that nothing is more important to him than a fair and balanced democracy, even if it goes against him? I don't, to be honest. I think Putin feels he can afford to tolerant, and that it profits him in this case. I suspect that Snowden isn't really all that influential in Russia - people who criticise the nation of their origin are often regarded with some scepticism in other countries; I know this from experience: one of the first reactions you get is not "You hate our enemy, so you must be a friend" - it is more likely to be "Why do you hate your own country?". But he is obviously useful to the Russian Intelligence Services, and he can act as a showcase - their pet system critic - as long as he is harmless to Putin or Russia.
I think a very significant accomplice in this 'crime' is the film industry, who very rarely produce anything that you would want to watch twice, really. Maybe I'm just too critical, but I can't really think of anything out of Hollywood that I cared to watch more than once - well, maybe there are a couple from long ago, but what I nearly always find lacking is something that is a bit original and feels convincing; regrettably, what you mostly get is a rehash of the same, old plot with a bit more in the way of spectacular (but strangely unconvincing) effects. That being the case, why would you actually want to have a stack of DVDs cluttering some shelf? Netflix and similar are perfect for this: you watch a film once and forget about it; incidentally, cinema is well suited for this as well, plus you don't need to have a spectacular home-cinema taking up space. This is probably why cinemas haven't disappeared, and why they may be seeing a bit of a renaissance atm.
This effort by ISIS is a pittance in comparison.
BTW, has anyone considered that it might be preferable to address their grievances rather than just bomb them?
I think people like daesh have put themselves into a position where they no longer are relevant to that discussion. I mean - do they think they address the abuses of the West and their many inequalities and wrongdoing by blowing up defenceless people in Syria and Iraq? Or by claiming responsibility for whichever sickening atrocity against women and children is carried out by deranged killers? Whatever anybody is going to do to address the grievances of the oppressed people of the world, it is clear that daesh will have to be eradicated, so don't try to play that card again, unless you want to be taken for an idiot.
And just so it is clear: putting people in a cage, dousing them with fuel and burning them alive, or raping children, or any of the other things that followers of daesh do, those are not "pittances", no matter what somebody else is doing, even if the Americans were committing war crimes on a grand scale. You can't excuse your crimes by saying "But they started it".
Those who are less likely to hold back what they are saying are more likely to not hold back what they are thinking. Big surprise.
A slightly subtle point that I think both you and the OP are missing is that honesty is not quite the same as naively or spontaneously expressing whatever goes through your head. I won't provide an example, but it is fully possible to be honest and considerate at the same time, for example, just like it is possible to express even severe anger and dissatisfaction without shouting or getting into a fight.
"The UNIX way" was to have multiple, not quite compatible, complete operating systems from multiple vendors such as HPUX, Solaris, IRIX, etc. Porting your software between those was a considerable effort, and in fact a whole standardisation body (posix) has sprung up around efforts to make those systems at least nominally compatible. And in later years, the Linux way was quite similar, with LSB attempting to keep distributions at least nominally compatible with each other, but the effort of porting an application from one distribution to another still going by the name of "porting".
You know, I have worked for something like 30 years as a UNIX developer, later sysadmin - HP-UX, AIX, SunOS, DECOS, Linux (most HW architectures: POWER, zArch, Intel/AMD, SPARC, etc), even USS (UNIX System Services under MVS) - and the one thing that stands out to me is how easy it is, in practise to move from one to the other. As developer, I was part of a team that wrote C code which was compiled to all our UNIX systems, and while there were one or two quirks to work around (most notably HP-UX's tendency to issue warnings about FUTURE errors, figure that), it was remarkably easy. Sysadmin is even easier - there is a large overlap, and the minor differences there are, are easily mastered - unlike what you find on Windows between versions.
I'm not a big fan of Trump, but if he actually delivers on this campaign promise (even if it's just scrawling his signature on the bill and then taking all the credit in speeches) that will be a good thing for me and most employed people on slashdot.
There's no doubt that he can push through a number of short-term fixes that make him look good, and maybe it will create more jobs for Americans, at least in the beginning; but isn't this what was criticised severely during the early years of financial crisis - and still is: that there were strong incentives for the executives to make a quick buck and then cut your losses and run, leaving the fall-out to those left behind?
Just to take an example: Trump wants to abandon everything that has been done to protect the environment - he wants to introduce more coal burning, he wants to scrap the Paris agreement and drill for oil in the Arctic etc. Apart from the damage this will cause to America's environment and the health of Americans, down the line, it will also mean that Europe, China and India will continue to get ahead of America when it comes to renewable energy technology, environmental protection etc, and they will build up sustainable industries on top of this, which will provide sustainable jobs etc, while America in years to come will be forced to go and buy this from outside, when a future government finally decides to come to their senses.
Is there any way this is a bad thing? H1B was supposed to be for bringing in essential foreign talent. If a company isn't willing to pay $100k per year plus the various expenses, whoever they are bringing it must not have been all that talented.
I don't know - but I suspect it is not as simple as you make it sound. In many countries in Europe - especially in Scandinavia - there has traditionally been rather stiff rules about minimum wages, and it as meant that the business climate simply wasn't as attractive as in many other countries. The was one of the many contributing factors that pushed up income taxes and foreign borrowing for many years, and the attempts at getting the rules loosened up have caused social unrest, strikes etc. I'm not against minimum wages, but you have to have a well thought out plan so you are prepared to tackle the consequences. And I have seen no indication that Trump has a plan - his stance on climate change consists mostly of ignoring science and walking away from international agreements; it's a bit like keeping warm by pissing yourself - it works, but only briefly, and then you have a more pressing problem to deal with.
He's not storing mountains of classified emails on his server.
- yet
The arrogance and the hypocrisy...
- of those who criticise what they don't understand and can't be bothered to learn. One of the central duties of any government is to protect the nation against things that harm the economy, and sucking capital out of the country does harm the economy. That is why people everywhere are rightfully outraged when rich people do everything they can to avoid paying taxes, for example. You may call it petty if you wish, but when you have some rich celebrity racing down motorways they carefully avoid contributing to at twice the speed limit in toy cars that cost millions each, then it is no wonder that people feel something is wrong. This is true in UK - and it is no less true just because it is China. In my view, these parasites should be flayed and rolled in salt.
It's the helplessness and the loneliness that does it, isn't it?
A surefire sign of the unthinking activist is their automatic rejection of any real-world solution to the carbon problem.
I don't think there is all that much difference between the doomsdayers on the one hand and the conspiracy theorist deniers on the other. Both sides have decided on their 'conclusion' a priori and mangle the available data to fit. The only real sceptics in all of this are the climate scientists; scepticism is at the very core of what science is. Blindly denying the observable facts - which both dommsdayers and deniers do - has nothing to do with being sceptical or thinking critically; it is nothing more than blind faith and represents the extreme of gullibility.
That said, it makes good sense to listen to the balanced, scientific viewpoints that are presented by climate science: humans do cause climate change, it is getting dangerous now, and we can actually do something constructive about it, not just in terms of short term mitigation, but also in terms of changing the stupid and wasteful habits that are a significant part of the reasons why we have climate change.
Congratulations - you invented the World Wide Web
There is probably a tiny bit more to it than that; nothing new in running against an application server, of course, but I suppose the real story might be that networking on mobiles is now considered mature and cheap enough for this architecture to be viable. And, I don't think you can equate www with "application servers".
Well, unless that theory is AGW.
That's settled. The only thing in "science" ever to be "settled".
And you got modded up, and this will get modded down - because HERETIC!, errr, DENIER!
No, not really; no science is settled in the sense that it will never be scrutinised and probed again. AGW is only settled in the sense that although the scientists are constantly doing exactly what I said above, they don't find major weaknesses. To put it into context: anthropogenic climate change doesn't come out of thin air and a desire for funding; it is the result of work with models, and not just any old model. These climate models are based on the same physical theories that are used for a very wide range of other models; not just weather forecasting, but all kinds of models to do with fluid flow, I'll bet (I'm not a physicist, but I'm sure somebody who is will confirm this). So, if you want to dispute the climate models, you will have to tread carefully - you'll have to explain exactly why climate models are invalid, when all the other models built on the same science are valid.
this is what modern science is reduced to, old theories joined to faddish techs that can be easily trailered to fit the theory.
No, this is what science has always been: chasing existing theories, testing them from different angles, trying to find weak points. Only a vanishingly small part of scientific discovery is about making a huge, new discovery. But what we see here, and what you are complaining about is really the poor journalism that tries to inflate good, but humdrum scientific results and make a sexy sounding headline out of it. And once again it has served its purpose: to attract clicks to slashdot's website, which translates into advertising revenue. From their point of view scientific accuracy only matters in as much as it increases revenue - they don't care if the clicks come from real scientists and engineers or clueless teenagers.
I don't think the popularity is all that interesting; it is much more worthwhile to look at the usefulness of a language for the job at hand. For numerical programming, FORTRAN has always had a huge following, simply because it was and still is very good for that purpose. Same goes for COBOL and the handling of administrative datayou wouldn't write a compiler or a weather model in COBOL, but then you probably wouldn't want to write payroll application in FORTRAN, lisp, C or similar; you could, but it wouldn't make a lot of sense if you already have most of your codebase in COBOL. And so on.
C is still one of the best, general-purpose languages there are: the syntax is simple, yet it allows the programmer to easily use nearly any facility available in the HW. Java has grown in importance because the applications that are needed now are different: optimisation for speed and/or size is no longer a major issue, but portability is; also, the Java environment has implemented a very comprehensive set of standards for things like database trnasactions (JPA), security (JAAS) and just about anything else you need in browser based enterprise applications, which means you don't have to speculate about how to do this or which libraries suit your purpose best. You just follow the standards, and that is hugely attractive. Some day we won't need to develop so many new things in that environment, and Java will become less popular.