I don't lend much credibility to this - it sounds far too ominous and sensationalist. I mean, how can I take serious a claim that "They" whoever they are, can "Deeply Affect" everybody's life, when I on a daily basis see how ineptly information is beings handled by nearly all players? These people don't seem able to find their own backsides with two hands and a guide dog. Apart from that - I assume we are talking (yet again) about the overhyped "Incredible Powers of Advertising"? People are perfectly able to ignore the crap; I have spam filters that work well, I have adblockers, noscript and others, and I have a recycling bin by my front door for printed adverts, which I discard out of hand, un-opened.
I think this kind of stories are a relic of the sizties or seventies, when advertisers actually believed in their imaginings. The trend now is that they are struggling, not least because companies are losing faith in the value. Hopefully it will go completely away soon.
Shouldn't the American people get to decide and have a voice on important matters?
Don't be ridiculous; this is demcracy: you get to vote on who has the best soundbites, so your rulers (=Big Money) can get on with the important things.
The more people tell them they are wrong, the more it cements their position.
What worries me is the similarities to situations we have seen before, like in Italy in the 1920es or Germany shortly after - people feel squeezed, they call for a strong leader, up pops somebody who 'speaks tough', and condones the violent behaviour of his followers. And the moderate majority didn't stand up to them, either because they were cowed or complacent. I'm not saying - yet - that Trump is a fascist of the same shape and size as Mussolini or Hitler; but the same dynamics are at works once again. It is potentially a very dangerous time for America - and the world.
People frequently ask questions such as, 'Did climate change cause Hurricane Sandy?' Science can't answer that because there are so many relevant factors for hurricanes.
I think it is the wrong kind of question to ask, really; climate is the average of weather events over large, geographic areas and long time periods, so if anything, we would say that weather causes climate, and changes in wearther events cause climate change, mathematically speaking. We have known for a long time that the increase in extreme weather events is compatible with what we would expect from the climate changes we have seen; I think perhaps what we can now say is that the increase in extreme events would not have occurred, if the climate had not changed. That is not quite the same as saying "Climate change caused Hurricane Sandy", although it is close.
Rumor has it that the next kernel will be named "Lennart's buttery balloon knot".
Oh dear, I definitely feel old age sneaking up on me; I just don't find these names funny any more. If ever I did. I'm all for having a sense of humour, but it would be refreshing if it wasn't always stuck up our own backsides. Can't we raise the level a bit? (Groan, I shouldn't have said that - now it's going to be about tits instead, isn't it?)
At random? Seriously? There is 150 signees of this warning, including three Nobel Prizes, which Hawking isn't, and you say you name Hawking at random? He is the only one named in the summary.
Sorry, I should have chosen my words with more care - this is what we in UK call 'sarcasm', yes, it's crude, I know. It's hardly random, when the guy's name is mentioned all over the place.
This is a problem faced by the whole wide world, and unless you want to skip socialism and head straight for communism, there's no fairer way to decide who can live there than by who can afford to live there. If you think you have a way to implement a meritocracy in our society, I'm interested, but mostly for the sake of amusement.
The good, ol', condescending "Do I look like I care?" - not so becoming, I think. Also, not actually very clever.
Still, in order to function, any community needs a collections of certain elements - namely the people who carry out the low ranking jobs that all you high-fliers don't want to get your hands grubby with. Now, who is going to take your rubbish away, fix your plumbing, repair sewers, build homes, teach your children, nurse you in hospital etc etc, if none of those people can afford to live in your scintillating wonder-city? That is the problem faced by almost all modern cities. Nobody has yet been able to find a solution that does not require state intervention in some form.
No one has a "right" to live anywhere. Ridiculous.
On the other hand, the right to life is a fundamental, human right - and that implies that everybody has a right to live somewhere, which contradicts your statement, I think.
Secondly, appeal to authority fallacy much? Who cares what Stephen Hawkins thinks about the real world? He is totally divorced from reality (not his fault, but it's a fact nevertheless). How many times does he have to go down a street at night, in an 'enriched' area, and worry about being mugged or raped?
Hawking is talking about the the effect on science and research. Being one of them, he probably knows a good more about this particular subject that most; he will have had to work with international colleagues, taking part in programmes set up and funded by diverse international bodies etc. Hell. even I know enough about these things to feel that he isn't speaking out of turn, not by a mile.
As for your comment about 'enriched' areas - what do you actually know about that? The most dangerous areas in UK to walk out at night are normally in the socially deprived estates in some of the English cities, where contrary to your insinuations, most of the residents are ethnically British, who live on state benefits. I speak with some authority, I think - I live in an area of London with a very high proportion of immigrants: Hindus, Sikhs, Polish, Chinese, Muslims. I love it - it is a nice and safe area where people are consderate neighbours. So, you can stop your scaremongering.
So balance that out with some incentives to lure talent and research to the UK.
This is not about attracting talent to UK - we are pretty good at doing that already, thanks to top level scientists like Stephen Hawking, just to mention one at random. But the EU fund a lot of very important research in UK, and a lot of cooperation in research and education would not happen, or would be significantly different outside EU.
The EU will never have the political will to get its act together and the UK similarly will not have the will to deal with the migrant crisis that will continue as long as they maintain open borders.
Won't they? I don't know what that actually means: 'getting its act together'. As far as I can see, the purpose of EU has always been primarily to create an free trade region in Europe, and to harmonise rules and regulations in order to remove barriers to trade. You may not like the Schengen are, the Euro and the rules that are agreed in EU, but I don't think you can deny that they are demonstrations of the EU working to fulfill its purpose. What I don't like about EU is that it is not ambitious enough - we should strive for a full 'European Nation', not this free-trade++ area. I don't think any country would be in danger of losing its identity - on the contrary. Just look at how Scotland and Wales are very much not England, despite being part of Great Britain for centuries. Or look at how culturally diverse the US is; being in a close, political union clearly doesn't take away regional individuality.
I am not personally all that bothered about whether we stay or leave; I'm sure we will survive if we leave, but there are so many issues facing us, which require wide, regional cooperation, and the number will only continue to grow for much of this century. I feel convinced that, like it not, we will have to choose joining an ever closer union with our neighbours at some point. If EU falls apart, then it will something else at some point. Plus, of course, the internet is an excellent tool for reaching out across national boundaries; nationalism won't last in this environment. It will be good when it disappears.
Use Tor, disable javascript by default, only use free-software, don't bring your cellphone everywhere you go (and keep it turned off most of the time), use email encryption, and don't stay logged in gmail/google when you browse the web!
All of which may seem good advice, but then again, being invisible on the net is such an unusual thing nowadays that this in itself may attract unwelcome attention.
Lumping Taiwan and Tibet together like that smacks of Communist apologist rhetoric.
Really? Tell that to whoever posted the comment I replied to - I think they brought it up. I'm not particularly defending Communism, although I can see several merits in the ideas behind it, but I do care about things like balance and honesty in discussion. If it is OK to attack the PRC by using the two as examples, then it is also OK to defend PRC's claims on those territories, I think. The fact that China has a Communist government is not really relevant in this respect - it would be the same if it was still an empire.
...Taiwan has just as large a "historical claim" towards liberating mainland China from the PRC.
Did I say anything to suggest that Taiwain should be "liberated"? What I said was that Taiwan, culturally and historically go together - similarly, you could say that Germany, Switzerland and Austria 'go together', or Spain and Mexico, etc. Whether they want it to be so is a matter for the populations of the respective countries.
Japan has had a long history with China, and generally not a good one.
True - Most notably, Japan conducted an extremely brutal war of conquest in China in the beginning of the 20th century. The atrocities of the Nazis in Gernmany are well known - Japan was no less bestial in China, IMO. This is still one of the main reasons for the bad blood between Japan and China; as far as I know (but I haven't particularly tried to find out), China has not attacked Japan at any point throughout its entire history.
As for Taiwan and Tibet: a brief look in Wikipedia shows that Taiwan was annexed by China in 1683. Tibet's relation to China has been more checkered, but it isn't correct to say that China doesn't have a historical claim on that territory. As for whether the annexation by the PRC counts as liberation or not is a matter of taste, I think; as far as I know, it was medieval, feudalistic society, where a majority were serfs who lived in poverty. Punishments like maiming were not uncommon. I know that I would have preferred Communist rule, personally, if that was the alternative.
If you're over 30, you're far more likely to be replaced in the next 5-10 years by some wet-behind-the-ears punk
I'm not sure about that - maybe in some companies, where quantity is more important than quality, but I have worked in two companies in the last 15 years, where they seem to prefer older developers, simply because they have a wider range of skills and experience.
I think, just because we get new, fancy tools that can do much of the hard work and make a complicated task seem simple, it doesn't actually mean that the underlying task IS simple; and what that kind of tools do is to make everybody less capable of fixing the deeper issues. We have seen this with Windows and networking: networking is not really very hard, but it requires some understanding of the issues - but with Windows for Workgroups, I think it was, the requirement for understanding seemed to be all but eliminated, and shortly after that, we began to see network issues that those who had been tasked with making it work simply didn't have the skill to fix. It didn't help, of course, that the interface actively discouraged you from learning how things worked on a deeper level.
And, to get to my point: it is very often the older, more mature developers and sysadmins that have the deeper understanding you need when things are not as straightforward as managers feel they ought to be. Some companies are beginning to realise that.
Despite not having all the tools / toys that the current crop of programmers get, programmers of yore produce codes which were far better than what we have right now
I would change "Despite" to "Because" - having to accomplish a difficult task with very limited resources forces you to stretch your imagination, use your intelligence and learn good coding practices.
I don't see why: the extremely rich companies may exert a lot of influence through media, donations, etc., however at the end of the day, the only thing that really matters is the votes. If the people vote for some non-establishment candidate, then that's who wins the election and takes office.
Don't we know plenty of examples? Laws that get passed to suit the convenience of large industries, despite what is good for the population as a whole and so on? The organised lobbying paid for by big money? Rich American corporations are able to exert so much influence that only their candidates are able to even get close to being elected; it doesn't really matter whether you vote Democrat or Republican, when both candidates as well as the majority of the rest of the politicians take their cue from the big corporations. I don't see how America can get real democracy, unless the influence of big money (in which I think one can include the religious industry) is gotten rid of.
A Trump/Sanders ticket would be hilarious; I've thought of that too.
I think what you and many others are saying is, that American politics has become, in essence, a tired, old sitcom, and people are sick of it - to the extent that they are willing to vote for anything that doesn't feel like 'establishment'. The problem, especially in America, is that the establishment includes the extremely rich companies that own everything; I don't think it will be possible to simply vote for the right politicians - something similar to the civil rights movement will be needed.
In the words of the immortal Chink: Ha ha, ho ho, he he! (Should not be an obscure reference on Slashdot.)
Do enlighten us all. As far as I know, 'chink' is a racial slur that means 'Chinese'. Chinese culture does contain reference to 'the immortals', but I don't have the impression that they are prone to laughing goofily. So far, you've only managed to communicate your apparent racism.
Do not forget to mention that she was responsible for the use of astrology in the decision-making process at the highest level.
To be fair, if we are to criticise people for consulting astrologers before making decisions, then we should do the same when they consult their imaginary friend. Astrology is as valid as any religion, which in my view isn't very much; and at least they can claim to make use of actual computations. And I think, also, that we shouldn't be completely blind to the fact, that things like prayer, meditation or consulting with oracles and horoscopes can potentially be a way to reflect more deeply over the decision you are about to make, regardless of whether your life-lie of choice is in itself bonkers.
Therein lies my point - if it would land us peons in prison, then why should the law exempt her for doing the same thing?
So, you're saying that it isn't because she is from the Democratic Party or her name is Clinton that you are up in arms, but because the law should apply equally to all? It is a noble sentiment with which I agree; but do you feel it applies to also to those who are on the same side as you, politically? How about if the perpetrator was somebody really close to you, somebody you have always looked up to? Would there be any leniency in you world view - any room for humanity, with it's inevitable frailties? In my view, priciples are good and right, but people often matter more; things are never black and white.
There is no real risk of a nuclear strike coming out of NK
Personally, I'm not as confident as that - we already know of people in this world, who are prepared to throw it all away even in an empty gesture, if they are pushed hard enough; and they do seem to have the capability to make nuclear weapons, even if it is only just. The problem is that they have been pushed into a corner that gets ever tighter, and they still haven't got the sense to change their tack. Do we believe they are going to back down at some point? I'm not convinced - it would appear that we have left them no way out of the corner, that they can accept. To me it seems that we, being the ones who in real terms are the strongest by several orders of magnitude, are also the ones who can best afford to give them a way out of the problems that they can accept. And in fact, I think that this is a course of action we are already trying to pursue; I hope we succeed.
But my fear is that we are seeing the approach of a major conflict, in which we have to confront the elements that have for whatever reasons chosen not make peace with the rest of the global society. There is little doubt that we will win, in the long run, but I hope we will make it worth the cost by creating a fairer and more egalitarian society afterwards. Because, like it or not, the one, common theme behind all of this is ever growing inequality in the world, with some - the developed nations - having a tendency to piss the less fortunate nations up and down and exploit them ruthlessly.
And that is all that matters to somebody from America, God's own country, where every public figure has to pretend they are devout Christians, is it? People like you are a disgrace. You may claim that American lives matter more to you than those of other nations, but I don't even think you mean that either - you are just a selfish little prick. Fortunately, as I know from experience, most Americans are decent people, whether they believe in God, gods or nothing.
I can fully understand why you prefer to hide in anonymity, expressing this kind of views. Organisations like Daesh thrive on fools like you; people who are all too willing to abandon their humanity, for whatever reason. Here's a little quote from Solzhenitsyn's "The Gulag Archipelago" - it seems to fit the description of both you and Daesh so well:
"Macbeth's self-justifications were feeble â" and his conscience devoured him. Yes, even Iago was a little lamb, too. The imagination and spiritual strength of Shakespeare's evildoers stopped short at a dozen corpses. Because they had no ideology. Ideology â" that is what gives evildoing its long-sought justification and gives the evildoer the necessary steadfastness and determination. That is the social theory which helps to make his acts seem good instead of bad in his own and others' eyes.... That was how the agents of the Inquisition fortified their wills: by invoking Christianity; the conquerors of foreign lands, by extolling the grandeur of their Motherland; the colonizers, by civilization; the Nazis, by race; and the Jacobins (early and late), by equality, brotherhood, and the happiness of future generations.... Without evildoers there would have been no Archipelago."
â"âAleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Chapter 4, p. 173
If the punishment is not adequate, then increase the punishment.
Oh, but there are so many issues to address here; arguably, punishment is very often not an adequate response to a crime at all, it is just that retribution is the only response society has been able to think up. What value does punishment have, if it doesn't lead to the person being punished staying away from crime in the future? I'm not denying that revenge has a legitimate role to play in satisfying the needs of the victims, and locking criminals up may sometimes reduce their ability to commit crime while they are inside, although with modern communication technology, that is less and less the case now. We need to come up with something better than "punishment", because it is expensive and it does not work very well.
But to respond to the OP, I think most countries already have rules that allow some, lesser crimes to be forgotten, in the sense that they no longer appear on criminal record checks. However, court proceeding are held in public and court records are public - this is a fundamental principle in justice. We have public laws, so that everybody have the ability to learn the rules, and we have public courts, so that everybody can check whether justice as been done; otherwise, how can people trust the state and the justice system? And with this being the case, it is absurd to demand that your crime must 'be forgotten'. In addition, why should the acts of the criminal be forgotten, when the effects on the victims and their families may be life-long? A rape victim or a young child that has been used for prostitution as a sex-slave will have to live with extremely serious consequences; is it reasonable that the perpetrator should suffer less?
Slashdot Mirror
I don't lend much credibility to this - it sounds far too ominous and sensationalist. I mean, how can I take serious a claim that "They" whoever they are, can "Deeply Affect" everybody's life, when I on a daily basis see how ineptly information is beings handled by nearly all players? These people don't seem able to find their own backsides with two hands and a guide dog. Apart from that - I assume we are talking (yet again) about the overhyped "Incredible Powers of Advertising"? People are perfectly able to ignore the crap; I have spam filters that work well, I have adblockers, noscript and others, and I have a recycling bin by my front door for printed adverts, which I discard out of hand, un-opened.
I think this kind of stories are a relic of the sizties or seventies, when advertisers actually believed in their imaginings. The trend now is that they are struggling, not least because companies are losing faith in the value. Hopefully it will go completely away soon.
Shouldn't the American people get to decide and have a voice on important matters?
Don't be ridiculous; this is demcracy: you get to vote on who has the best soundbites, so your rulers (=Big Money) can get on with the important things.
I see the same exact thing happening again.
People want change and they love an underdog.
The more people tell them they are wrong, the more it cements their position.
What worries me is the similarities to situations we have seen before, like in Italy in the 1920es or Germany shortly after - people feel squeezed, they call for a strong leader, up pops somebody who 'speaks tough', and condones the violent behaviour of his followers. And the moderate majority didn't stand up to them, either because they were cowed or complacent. I'm not saying - yet - that Trump is a fascist of the same shape and size as Mussolini or Hitler; but the same dynamics are at works once again. It is potentially a very dangerous time for America - and the world.
People frequently ask questions such as, 'Did climate change cause Hurricane Sandy?' Science can't answer that because there are so many relevant factors for hurricanes.
I think it is the wrong kind of question to ask, really; climate is the average of weather events over large, geographic areas and long time periods, so if anything, we would say that weather causes climate, and changes in wearther events cause climate change, mathematically speaking. We have known for a long time that the increase in extreme weather events is compatible with what we would expect from the climate changes we have seen; I think perhaps what we can now say is that the increase in extreme events would not have occurred, if the climate had not changed. That is not quite the same as saying "Climate change caused Hurricane Sandy", although it is close.
It is internally dubbed "Blurry Fish Butt"
Rumor has it that the next kernel will be named "Lennart's buttery balloon knot".
Oh dear, I definitely feel old age sneaking up on me; I just don't find these names funny any more. If ever I did. I'm all for having a sense of humour, but it would be refreshing if it wasn't always stuck up our own backsides. Can't we raise the level a bit? (Groan, I shouldn't have said that - now it's going to be about tits instead, isn't it?)
At random? Seriously? There is 150 signees of this warning, including three Nobel Prizes, which Hawking isn't, and you say you name Hawking at random? He is the only one named in the summary.
Sorry, I should have chosen my words with more care - this is what we in UK call 'sarcasm', yes, it's crude, I know. It's hardly random, when the guy's name is mentioned all over the place.
This is a problem faced by the whole wide world, and unless you want to skip socialism and head straight for communism, there's no fairer way to decide who can live there than by who can afford to live there. If you think you have a way to implement a meritocracy in our society, I'm interested, but mostly for the sake of amusement.
The good, ol', condescending "Do I look like I care?" - not so becoming, I think. Also, not actually very clever.
Still, in order to function, any community needs a collections of certain elements - namely the people who carry out the low ranking jobs that all you high-fliers don't want to get your hands grubby with. Now, who is going to take your rubbish away, fix your plumbing, repair sewers, build homes, teach your children, nurse you in hospital etc etc, if none of those people can afford to live in your scintillating wonder-city? That is the problem faced by almost all modern cities. Nobody has yet been able to find a solution that does not require state intervention in some form.
No one has a "right" to live anywhere. Ridiculous.
On the other hand, the right to life is a fundamental, human right - and that implies that everybody has a right to live somewhere, which contradicts your statement, I think.
Secondly, appeal to authority fallacy much? Who cares what Stephen Hawkins thinks about the real world? He is totally divorced from reality (not his fault, but it's a fact nevertheless). How many times does he have to go down a street at night, in an 'enriched' area, and worry about being mugged or raped?
Hawking is talking about the the effect on science and research. Being one of them, he probably knows a good more about this particular subject that most; he will have had to work with international colleagues, taking part in programmes set up and funded by diverse international bodies etc. Hell. even I know enough about these things to feel that he isn't speaking out of turn, not by a mile.
As for your comment about 'enriched' areas - what do you actually know about that? The most dangerous areas in UK to walk out at night are normally in the socially deprived estates in some of the English cities, where contrary to your insinuations, most of the residents are ethnically British, who live on state benefits. I speak with some authority, I think - I live in an area of London with a very high proportion of immigrants: Hindus, Sikhs, Polish, Chinese, Muslims. I love it - it is a nice and safe area where people are consderate neighbours. So, you can stop your scaremongering.
So balance that out with some incentives to lure talent and research to the UK.
This is not about attracting talent to UK - we are pretty good at doing that already, thanks to top level scientists like Stephen Hawking, just to mention one at random. But the EU fund a lot of very important research in UK, and a lot of cooperation in research and education would not happen, or would be significantly different outside EU.
The EU will never have the political will to get its act together and the UK similarly will not have the will to deal with the migrant crisis that will continue as long as they maintain open borders.
Won't they? I don't know what that actually means: 'getting its act together'. As far as I can see, the purpose of EU has always been primarily to create an free trade region in Europe, and to harmonise rules and regulations in order to remove barriers to trade. You may not like the Schengen are, the Euro and the rules that are agreed in EU, but I don't think you can deny that they are demonstrations of the EU working to fulfill its purpose. What I don't like about EU is that it is not ambitious enough - we should strive for a full 'European Nation', not this free-trade++ area. I don't think any country would be in danger of losing its identity - on the contrary. Just look at how Scotland and Wales are very much not England, despite being part of Great Britain for centuries. Or look at how culturally diverse the US is; being in a close, political union clearly doesn't take away regional individuality.
I am not personally all that bothered about whether we stay or leave; I'm sure we will survive if we leave, but there are so many issues facing us, which require wide, regional cooperation, and the number will only continue to grow for much of this century. I feel convinced that, like it not, we will have to choose joining an ever closer union with our neighbours at some point. If EU falls apart, then it will something else at some point. Plus, of course, the internet is an excellent tool for reaching out across national boundaries; nationalism won't last in this environment. It will be good when it disappears.
Use Tor, disable javascript by default, only use free-software, don't bring your cellphone everywhere you go (and keep it turned off most of the time), use email encryption, and don't stay logged in gmail/google when you browse the web!
All of which may seem good advice, but then again, being invisible on the net is such an unusual thing nowadays that this in itself may attract unwelcome attention.
I see what you're saying, but we're talking about mass theft here.
Good point, but on the other hand, isn't is using Windows punishment enough? We shouldn't go overboard.
Lumping Taiwan and Tibet together like that smacks of Communist apologist rhetoric.
Really? Tell that to whoever posted the comment I replied to - I think they brought it up. I'm not particularly defending Communism, although I can see several merits in the ideas behind it, but I do care about things like balance and honesty in discussion. If it is OK to attack the PRC by using the two as examples, then it is also OK to defend PRC's claims on those territories, I think. The fact that China has a Communist government is not really relevant in this respect - it would be the same if it was still an empire.
...Taiwan has just as large a "historical claim" towards liberating mainland China from the PRC.
Did I say anything to suggest that Taiwain should be "liberated"? What I said was that Taiwan, culturally and historically go together - similarly, you could say that Germany, Switzerland and Austria 'go together', or Spain and Mexico, etc. Whether they want it to be so is a matter for the populations of the respective countries.
Japan has had a long history with China, and generally not a good one.
True - Most notably, Japan conducted an extremely brutal war of conquest in China in the beginning of the 20th century. The atrocities of the Nazis in Gernmany are well known - Japan was no less bestial in China, IMO. This is still one of the main reasons for the bad blood between Japan and China; as far as I know (but I haven't particularly tried to find out), China has not attacked Japan at any point throughout its entire history.
As for Taiwan and Tibet: a brief look in Wikipedia shows that Taiwan was annexed by China in 1683. Tibet's relation to China has been more checkered, but it isn't correct to say that China doesn't have a historical claim on that territory. As for whether the annexation by the PRC counts as liberation or not is a matter of taste, I think; as far as I know, it was medieval, feudalistic society, where a majority were serfs who lived in poverty. Punishments like maiming were not uncommon. I know that I would have preferred Communist rule, personally, if that was the alternative.
If you're over 30, you're far more likely to be replaced in the next 5-10 years by some wet-behind-the-ears punk
I'm not sure about that - maybe in some companies, where quantity is more important than quality, but I have worked in two companies in the last 15 years, where they seem to prefer older developers, simply because they have a wider range of skills and experience.
I think, just because we get new, fancy tools that can do much of the hard work and make a complicated task seem simple, it doesn't actually mean that the underlying task IS simple; and what that kind of tools do is to make everybody less capable of fixing the deeper issues. We have seen this with Windows and networking: networking is not really very hard, but it requires some understanding of the issues - but with Windows for Workgroups, I think it was, the requirement for understanding seemed to be all but eliminated, and shortly after that, we began to see network issues that those who had been tasked with making it work simply didn't have the skill to fix. It didn't help, of course, that the interface actively discouraged you from learning how things worked on a deeper level.
And, to get to my point: it is very often the older, more mature developers and sysadmins that have the deeper understanding you need when things are not as straightforward as managers feel they ought to be. Some companies are beginning to realise that.
Despite not having all the tools / toys that the current crop of programmers get, programmers of yore produce codes which were far better than what we have right now
I would change "Despite" to "Because" - having to accomplish a difficult task with very limited resources forces you to stretch your imagination, use your intelligence and learn good coding practices.
I don't see why: the extremely rich companies may exert a lot of influence through media, donations, etc., however at the end of the day, the only thing that really matters is the votes. If the people vote for some non-establishment candidate, then that's who wins the election and takes office.
Don't we know plenty of examples? Laws that get passed to suit the convenience of large industries, despite what is good for the population as a whole and so on? The organised lobbying paid for by big money? Rich American corporations are able to exert so much influence that only their candidates are able to even get close to being elected; it doesn't really matter whether you vote Democrat or Republican, when both candidates as well as the majority of the rest of the politicians take their cue from the big corporations. I don't see how America can get real democracy, unless the influence of big money (in which I think one can include the religious industry) is gotten rid of.
A Trump/Sanders ticket would be hilarious; I've thought of that too.
I think what you and many others are saying is, that American politics has become, in essence, a tired, old sitcom, and people are sick of it - to the extent that they are willing to vote for anything that doesn't feel like 'establishment'. The problem, especially in America, is that the establishment includes the extremely rich companies that own everything; I don't think it will be possible to simply vote for the right politicians - something similar to the civil rights movement will be needed.
In the words of the immortal Chink: Ha ha, ho ho, he he! (Should not be an obscure reference on Slashdot.)
Do enlighten us all. As far as I know, 'chink' is a racial slur that means 'Chinese'. Chinese culture does contain reference to 'the immortals', but I don't have the impression that they are prone to laughing goofily. So far, you've only managed to communicate your apparent racism.
Do not forget to mention that she was responsible for the use of astrology in the decision-making process at the highest level.
To be fair, if we are to criticise people for consulting astrologers before making decisions, then we should do the same when they consult their imaginary friend. Astrology is as valid as any religion, which in my view isn't very much; and at least they can claim to make use of actual computations. And I think, also, that we shouldn't be completely blind to the fact, that things like prayer, meditation or consulting with oracles and horoscopes can potentially be a way to reflect more deeply over the decision you are about to make, regardless of whether your life-lie of choice is in itself bonkers.
Therein lies my point - if it would land us peons in prison, then why should the law exempt her for doing the same thing?
So, you're saying that it isn't because she is from the Democratic Party or her name is Clinton that you are up in arms, but because the law should apply equally to all? It is a noble sentiment with which I agree; but do you feel it applies to also to those who are on the same side as you, politically? How about if the perpetrator was somebody really close to you, somebody you have always looked up to? Would there be any leniency in you world view - any room for humanity, with it's inevitable frailties? In my view, priciples are good and right, but people often matter more; things are never black and white.
There is no real risk of a nuclear strike coming out of NK
Personally, I'm not as confident as that - we already know of people in this world, who are prepared to throw it all away even in an empty gesture, if they are pushed hard enough; and they do seem to have the capability to make nuclear weapons, even if it is only just. The problem is that they have been pushed into a corner that gets ever tighter, and they still haven't got the sense to change their tack. Do we believe they are going to back down at some point? I'm not convinced - it would appear that we have left them no way out of the corner, that they can accept. To me it seems that we, being the ones who in real terms are the strongest by several orders of magnitude, are also the ones who can best afford to give them a way out of the problems that they can accept. And in fact, I think that this is a course of action we are already trying to pursue; I hope we succeed.
But my fear is that we are seeing the approach of a major conflict, in which we have to confront the elements that have for whatever reasons chosen not make peace with the rest of the global society. There is little doubt that we will win, in the long run, but I hope we will make it worth the cost by creating a fairer and more egalitarian society afterwards. Because, like it or not, the one, common theme behind all of this is ever growing inequality in the world, with some - the developed nations - having a tendency to piss the less fortunate nations up and down and exploit them ruthlessly.
Good! That'll save tax dollars!
And that is all that matters to somebody from America, God's own country, where every public figure has to pretend they are devout Christians, is it? People like you are a disgrace. You may claim that American lives matter more to you than those of other nations, but I don't even think you mean that either - you are just a selfish little prick. Fortunately, as I know from experience, most Americans are decent people, whether they believe in God, gods or nothing.
I do.
I can fully understand why you prefer to hide in anonymity, expressing this kind of views. Organisations like Daesh thrive on fools like you; people who are all too willing to abandon their humanity, for whatever reason. Here's a little quote from Solzhenitsyn's "The Gulag Archipelago" - it seems to fit the description of both you and Daesh so well:
"Macbeth's self-justifications were feeble â" and his conscience devoured him. Yes, even Iago was a little lamb, too. The imagination and spiritual strength of Shakespeare's evildoers stopped short at a dozen corpses. Because they had no ideology. Ideology â" that is what gives evildoing its long-sought justification and gives the evildoer the necessary steadfastness and determination. That is the social theory which helps to make his acts seem good instead of bad in his own and others' eyes.... That was how the agents of the Inquisition fortified their wills: by invoking Christianity; the conquerors of foreign lands, by extolling the grandeur of their Motherland; the colonizers, by civilization; the Nazis, by race; and the Jacobins (early and late), by equality, brotherhood, and the happiness of future generations.... Without evildoers there would have been no Archipelago."
â"âAleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Chapter 4, p. 173
If the punishment is not adequate, then increase the punishment.
Oh, but there are so many issues to address here; arguably, punishment is very often not an adequate response to a crime at all, it is just that retribution is the only response society has been able to think up. What value does punishment have, if it doesn't lead to the person being punished staying away from crime in the future? I'm not denying that revenge has a legitimate role to play in satisfying the needs of the victims, and locking criminals up may sometimes reduce their ability to commit crime while they are inside, although with modern communication technology, that is less and less the case now. We need to come up with something better than "punishment", because it is expensive and it does not work very well.
But to respond to the OP, I think most countries already have rules that allow some, lesser crimes to be forgotten, in the sense that they no longer appear on criminal record checks. However, court proceeding are held in public and court records are public - this is a fundamental principle in justice. We have public laws, so that everybody have the ability to learn the rules, and we have public courts, so that everybody can check whether justice as been done; otherwise, how can people trust the state and the justice system? And with this being the case, it is absurd to demand that your crime must 'be forgotten'. In addition, why should the acts of the criminal be forgotten, when the effects on the victims and their families may be life-long? A rape victim or a young child that has been used for prostitution as a sex-slave will have to live with extremely serious consequences; is it reasonable that the perpetrator should suffer less?