The fact that this has always been there yet has not caught on despite being cheaper shows that the market for employees that lack a broad (dare I say liberal arts) education are not in demand. This surprises me but I support it because I want an educated citizenry.
a huge part of the post-election conversation is trying to understand why the left lost touch with the white working class.
I hope you're right. I have seen very little in terms of tone change since the election. In fact, I've heard the opposite stated a few times, that it would be akin to giving in to racist coercion to have a more straight-up populist message with less of the identity politics.
It seems to me from the voter turnout perspective, it wasn't so much that Trump and Republicans turned out huge numbers, but that Hillary and the democrats failed to turn out the Obama coalition and didn't woo a significant number of new Latino voters. I think it speaks more to lacking a charismatic leader at the top or perhaps hubris by democrats due to all the expectation that the election was in the bag.
Fortunately, there's a limit to the supply by virtue of the number of visas, so I can actually see this being better for everyone involved (stateside). More foreign competition for the limited visa slots, and US workers are more appealing with the cost of living imbalance lessened.
The fact that you are calling it an 'engineer' position makes me think you're bolstering the requirements for a position beyond what's needed to do the job. Was this a position for a programmer or for someone doing rote testing? I'd be interested to see the salary and requirements for such a position.
-The first link is merely a comment paper, and seems measured in it's response. The methodology critique seems nit picky.
- The second link is about the AMA, which is not made up of the same folks that would be publishing climate science research. From their website:
Our more than 13,000 members include scientists, researchers, educators, broadcast meteorologists, students, weather enthusiasts, and other professionals in the fields of weather, water, and climate.
-I don't have access to the 3rd paper at home, so can't comment.
-The springer article seems unduly narrow in their definition of consensus:
the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic.
It seems like the tipping point in many of these articles is whether the environment has a significant or equal impact on climate change. Even in the cooking the books article:
"Only 59% of the scientists said the ‘climate development of the last 50 years was mostly influenced by man’s activity. One quarter of those surveyed said that human and natural factors played an equal role.’"
Put another way, that's 84% say that humans play at least an equal roll in climate change. I'd still call that consensus, even if it's not 97%.
Can you supply any references for the debunked consensus? When I originally looked into the matter, I found several papers confirming the consensus, but it has been a few years since I looked
We don't have the data to say anything meaningful about the preference differences among Americans. On the whole, right around 20% of the US population voted for both the (D) Hillary and the (R) Trump, with a roughly 1% difference (or 28.5% vs 27.2% among voting age Americans[1]). I wish I could further break down who actually chose a specific candidate vs a straight ticket vote for a party to further dampen the meaning of the outcome.
Reading the article, it looks like WikiLeaks only linked to a database of party membership info (which had more information on women than men). Moreover, they didn't host it. That seems an important distinction, particularly because WL didn't single out women in any way if they didn't curate the data.
She said 'half' are deplorable (and are furthermore irredeemable.) You don't get to call out the edge cases as being representative when 50% are included. Op might well have flipped a coin and decided based on that.
All of us here know that, as do many others. One would hope that our 'cyber' (how did that word become a thing again...) defense representatives have some way of validating who is actually at the other end of the line, and we're supposed to get some sort of evidence in a report soon. However, with means and methods being what they are, I'm not expecting much.
The US is the #2 producer of oil. There is no good reason for a conspiracy of that magnitude when we could just drill more and drive down the price even lower if geopolitics was the objective.
Moreover, science is international, how did the US hoodwink virtually the entire climate science community?
To suggest she be protected from a crude comment from a surly interviewee as a national grade reporter who has (presumably) dealt with these issues since she started working is overtly sexist.
Believe it or not, women arent just masses or hormones, They actually have backbones on their own.
Sure, blame that whopping less than 5% of people that voted for someone other than the two record-breakingly unlikable candidates that were put up on offer. Clearly it's their fault.
Everything I've read and heard on the recent earthquakes is that re-injection of spent water is as likely if not more likely the culprit than the actual extraction, particularly at high pressure near faults:
http://news.stanford.edu/2015/...
I don't think any realistic reading of that commentary would lead one to believe she's abstractly reviewing an effective method of governance, but rather explicitly explaining her view of how to be politically successful. The quote:
you need both a public and a private position
is quite palatable and terse while still accurate. What she's really saying is that she thinks you can't tell the public the truth because it make them nervous, so the 'balance' of saying one thing in public then going in a back room and doing something else entirely is how the unsavory sausage of political success is made. Please explain how you can read that any differently?
It's the result of doing what other people want you to do
That's one way it happens. Another is by buying out your competitors and cornering the market, or paying your employees less. It's certainly not necessarily what other people want.
Religious institutions, as a rule, do so much more efficiently than the government.
That may be the funniest thing I've read in a good while. Efficiency isn't a rule or even a broad directive, and the lavish use of funds on ornate buildings in prime locations are obvious examples of this.
You impugn the clear arguments put forth by the AC based on alleged misunderstandings of 'basic' definitions of words without offering any definitions. That's a cowardly way to argue and moreover irrelevant to the argument at hand. Please provide some evidence or alternate definition to dispute that many mainstream religions teach (and billions of adherents consider to be facts) that there are divinely inspired texts that provide accurate historical accounts of supernatural conceptions, resurrections, and interventions in human affairs.
I wondered this too. as much as I hate the bastards it would be interesting to note what differences there would be by not effectively sharing needles across a huge swath of the populace. Also, does the aggregate of blood lost from mosquitos in any way affect the buildup of metals in our blood
The weight of fuel affects mileage, so you might get 1% better fuel economy if you're running with an extra 10 gallons of fuel that you don't absolutely need.
OP mentioned using a file system/folder structure as a 'database abstraction', and I listed some of the benefits of a database that you don't get in the abstraction. I guess I'll describe them in more detail as I must not have been clear. Of course it would be handy to say no log files in the image folder, enforce not having multiple copies of the same file type, don't delete the file but not the metadata, get all the *.jpgs, from two projects, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
The fact that this has always been there yet has not caught on despite being cheaper shows that the market for employees that lack a broad (dare I say liberal arts) education are not in demand. This surprises me but I support it because I want an educated citizenry.
a huge part of the post-election conversation is trying to understand why the left lost touch with the white working class.
I hope you're right. I have seen very little in terms of tone change since the election. In fact, I've heard the opposite stated a few times, that it would be akin to giving in to racist coercion to have a more straight-up populist message with less of the identity politics.
It seems to me from the voter turnout perspective, it wasn't so much that Trump and Republicans turned out huge numbers, but that Hillary and the democrats failed to turn out the Obama coalition and didn't woo a significant number of new Latino voters. I think it speaks more to lacking a charismatic leader at the top or perhaps hubris by democrats due to all the expectation that the election was in the bag.
It must be that that something hooked in (anti-spam, NSA comment validator, AI comment bot for hot grits responses) doesn't support it.
Fortunately, there's a limit to the supply by virtue of the number of visas, so I can actually see this being better for everyone involved (stateside). More foreign competition for the limited visa slots, and US workers are more appealing with the cost of living imbalance lessened.
The fact that you are calling it an 'engineer' position makes me think you're bolstering the requirements for a position beyond what's needed to do the job. Was this a position for a programmer or for someone doing rote testing? I'd be interested to see the salary and requirements for such a position.
-The first link is merely a comment paper, and seems measured in it's response. The methodology critique seems nit picky.
- The second link is about the AMA, which is not made up of the same folks that would be publishing climate science research. From their website:
Our more than 13,000 members include scientists, researchers, educators, broadcast meteorologists, students, weather enthusiasts, and other professionals in the fields of weather, water, and climate.
-I don't have access to the 3rd paper at home, so can't comment.
-The springer article seems unduly narrow in their definition of consensus:
the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic.
It seems like the tipping point in many of these articles is whether the environment has a significant or equal impact on climate change. Even in the cooking the books article:
"Only 59% of the scientists said the ‘climate development of the last 50 years was mostly influenced by man’s activity. One quarter of those surveyed said that human and natural factors played an equal role.’"
Put another way, that's 84% say that humans play at least an equal roll in climate change. I'd still call that consensus, even if it's not 97%.
Can you supply any references for the debunked consensus? When I originally looked into the matter, I found several papers confirming the consensus, but it has been a few years since I looked
We don't have the data to say anything meaningful about the preference differences among Americans. On the whole, right around 20% of the US population voted for both the (D) Hillary and the (R) Trump, with a roughly 1% difference (or 28.5% vs 27.2% among voting age Americans[1]). I wish I could further break down who actually chose a specific candidate vs a straight ticket vote for a party to further dampen the meaning of the outcome.
[1] http://cookpolitical.com/story/10174
Reading the article, it looks like WikiLeaks only linked to a database of party membership info (which had more information on women than men). Moreover, they didn't host it. That seems an important distinction, particularly because WL didn't single out women in any way if they didn't curate the data.
She said 'half' are deplorable (and are furthermore irredeemable.) You don't get to call out the edge cases as being representative when 50% are included. Op might well have flipped a coin and decided based on that.
All of us here know that, as do many others. One would hope that our 'cyber' (how did that word become a thing again...) defense representatives have some way of validating who is actually at the other end of the line, and we're supposed to get some sort of evidence in a report soon. However, with means and methods being what they are, I'm not expecting much.
The US is the #2 producer of oil. There is no good reason for a conspiracy of that magnitude when we could just drill more and drive down the price even lower if geopolitics was the objective.
Moreover, science is international, how did the US hoodwink virtually the entire climate science community?
so roughly 10% of the world population has a more left-of-center view than a nation of immigrants. Unsurprising.
I think you misread the intent of my comment, I was speaking to what I saw as Skam's over-protective comment for this reporter.
To suggest she be protected from a crude comment from a surly interviewee as a national grade reporter who has (presumably) dealt with these issues since she started working is overtly sexist. Believe it or not, women arent just masses or hormones, They actually have backbones on their own.
because of all the idiots voting for 3rd parties
Sure, blame that whopping less than 5% of people that voted for someone other than the two record-breakingly unlikable candidates that were put up on offer. Clearly it's their fault.
Everything I've read and heard on the recent earthquakes is that re-injection of spent water is as likely if not more likely the culprit than the actual extraction, particularly at high pressure near faults: http://news.stanford.edu/2015/...
you need both a public and a private position
is quite palatable and terse while still accurate. What she's really saying is that she thinks you can't tell the public the truth because it make them nervous, so the 'balance' of saying one thing in public then going in a back room and doing something else entirely is how the unsavory sausage of political success is made. Please explain how you can read that any differently?
It's the result of doing what other people want you to do
That's one way it happens. Another is by buying out your competitors and cornering the market, or paying your employees less. It's certainly not necessarily what other people want.
Religious institutions, as a rule, do so much more efficiently than the government.
That may be the funniest thing I've read in a good while. Efficiency isn't a rule or even a broad directive, and the lavish use of funds on ornate buildings in prime locations are obvious examples of this.
You impugn the clear arguments put forth by the AC based on alleged misunderstandings of 'basic' definitions of words without offering any definitions. That's a cowardly way to argue and moreover irrelevant to the argument at hand. Please provide some evidence or alternate definition to dispute that many mainstream religions teach (and billions of adherents consider to be facts) that there are divinely inspired texts that provide accurate historical accounts of supernatural conceptions, resurrections, and interventions in human affairs.
Agreed. Between Stuxnet and assassinating scientists of the backs of mopeds, short of military action we've been as aggressive as we can.
I wondered this too. as much as I hate the bastards it would be interesting to note what differences there would be by not effectively sharing needles across a huge swath of the populace. Also, does the aggregate of blood lost from mosquitos in any way affect the buildup of metals in our blood
The weight of fuel affects mileage, so you might get 1% better fuel economy if you're running with an extra 10 gallons of fuel that you don't absolutely need.
OP mentioned using a file system/folder structure as a 'database abstraction', and I listed some of the benefits of a database that you don't get in the abstraction. I guess I'll describe them in more detail as I must not have been clear. Of course it would be handy to say no log files in the image folder, enforce not having multiple copies of the same file type, don't delete the file but not the metadata, get all the *.jpgs, from two projects, etc.