Well, let's think about it. Very powerful person who can ruin careers has a pattern of making unwanted sexual advances on very junior subordinates. Gee, do we
a) let the guy continue? b) get him out of his position of authority that he's been abusing?
I was at a rather bizarre all-company video conference meeting years ago on this topic. The head of software dev had been pushing to fire the "bottom" 10% each year, because he was a psycho who enjoyed firing people. The head HR woman came on the conference first and announced that there was a new policy that the "bottom" 10% would be place on an "improvement" program. Then dev head comes on and starts talking about firing people. HR woman drags him off, they come back in a few minutes, HR woman talks about "improvement" programs. Dev head comes on and talks about firing people. Repeat. It was amusing in a Dilbert sort of way.
Why misguided? I use a laptop at work. I can work from the office, work from home, even work when I'm at the garage waiting for my car to be repaired, and I always have my environment with me. For me it's the only way to go.
Yep. We need to "uncover" a conspiracy by the terrorists to lower oil prices so more CO2 is produced, causing a sea rise that will inundate the evil USA. Then the Republicans will be racing each other to see who can be tougher on global warming.
The problem with one person "accidentally" dying is that now you have everyone that they know interested. Not to mention the killer and the people that the killer associates with.
Yeah, the "exploitation of older people" is such a bizarre argument that ignores everything else in the summary. After all, retirees are looking for part time work to augment their income. They don't need medical insurance, they don't need a 401K, they don't need paid vacation, they need a little extra $ in their pockets. The statement that giving a retiree exactly what he wants is "exploiting" him is absurd.
The next President will appoint 2 to 3 Supreme Court justices. As long as you aren't a woman, an immigrant, need health care, Muslim, poor, middle class, etc, it really doesn't matter who the next President is.
Exactly. If you think of it as "building a business" it looks crazy. If you think of it as "I'm going to make lots of money and get a huge bonus for getting big short term profits" it makes perfect sense. All you need is a complete lack of moral sense or accountability.
Right. Sort of like if you work for a company and at the end of the pay period they don't pay you. They haven't deprived you of anything. So guess there's nothing wrong with that. Right?
At $200k a year, if even a couple of kids a year become productive citizens instead of the State having to pay to house them in jails, she is a bargain.
Fine. But in that case, why worry about whether a hypothetical colony is going to be independent or not, when we agree it isn't going to happen for the foreseeable future?
Great. Tell me how they survive. Remembering that broken bolt could mean death. They have 3d printing? Where's the plastic come from... no hydrocarbons on Mars. They have nuclear power? uh, where's the mine for the fuel?
Look, I grew up on science fiction, I watched the moon landings live (yep, I've been around a while). I would LOVE to see humans on Mars. But there are some "issues" that people just paper over with "oh well, they will be self-sufficient" w/o any thought as to what that means. I think we will get to Mars, maybe the rest of the solar system, but that's a ways off. The immediate future belongs to robots.
Imagine shipping people off to the harshest environment on earth. Do you think they would survive w/o resupply or support? Now, make that environment FAR harsher... no air, hard to get water, bathed in radiation, nearest support is tens of millions of miles away. Do you still blithely say "no problem, they'll do fine"?
That's fine. But if you want the American public to fund it, you need to justify it. Do you have skin in the game? Are you willing to do without in order to fund a trip to Mars? Or do you just want everyone else to pay for it?
Everyone accepts that people might die. What's hard to justify is spending a trillion dollars to send a few people to Mars, when for a few billion you can have rovers running for years. It's pretty simple math.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, let's think about it. Very powerful person who can ruin careers has a pattern of making unwanted sexual advances on very junior subordinates. Gee, do we
a) let the guy continue?
b) get him out of his position of authority that he's been abusing?
Wow, what a tough moral dilemma...
I was at a rather bizarre all-company video conference meeting years ago on this topic. The head of software dev had been pushing to fire the "bottom" 10% each year, because he was a psycho who enjoyed firing people. The head HR woman came on the conference first and announced that there was a new policy that the "bottom" 10% would be place on an "improvement" program. Then dev head comes on and starts talking about firing people. HR woman drags him off, they come back in a few minutes, HR woman talks about "improvement" programs. Dev head comes on and talks about firing people. Repeat. It was amusing in a Dilbert sort of way.
Why misguided? I use a laptop at work. I can work from the office, work from home, even work when I'm at the garage waiting for my car to be repaired, and I always have my environment with me. For me it's the only way to go.
Yep. We need to "uncover" a conspiracy by the terrorists to lower oil prices so more CO2 is produced, causing a sea rise that will inundate the evil USA. Then the Republicans will be racing each other to see who can be tougher on global warming.
The problem with one person "accidentally" dying is that now you have everyone that they know interested. Not to mention the killer and the people that the killer associates with.
Look up Macbeth if you want an example.
No, it's what he wants... a part time job to supply some extra cash.
Yeah, the "exploitation of older people" is such a bizarre argument that ignores everything else in the summary. After all, retirees are looking for part time work to augment their income. They don't need medical insurance, they don't need a 401K, they don't need paid vacation, they need a little extra $ in their pockets. The statement that giving a retiree exactly what he wants is "exploiting" him is absurd.
was it teleported out via a backdoor in the broker software? Or do you still own those shares and will the value come back as the market rises?
The next President will appoint 2 to 3 Supreme Court justices. As long as you aren't a woman, an immigrant, need health care, Muslim, poor, middle class, etc, it really doesn't matter who the next President is.
Exactly. If you think of it as "building a business" it looks crazy. If you think of it as "I'm going to make lots of money and get a huge bonus for getting big short term profits" it makes perfect sense. All you need is a complete lack of moral sense or accountability.
And maybe your work didn't profit the company all that much, so they shouldn't bother paying you.
Right. Sort of like if you work for a company and at the end of the pay period they don't pay you. They haven't deprived you of anything. So guess there's nothing wrong with that. Right?
At $200k a year, if even a couple of kids a year become productive citizens instead of the State having to pay to house them in jails, she is a bargain.
You forgot to reverse the polarity.
Yep, from the end user's point of view, they ARE the same thing.
Maybe the Linux Desktop will be a web app?
Precisely
Fine. But in that case, why worry about whether a hypothetical colony is going to be independent or not, when we agree it isn't going to happen for the foreseeable future?
damn, where's my +5 insightful mod when I need it? Poor Americans pay FAR more of their percentage of income in taxes than wealthy Americans.
Great. Tell me how they survive. Remembering that broken bolt could mean death. They have 3d printing? Where's the plastic come from... no hydrocarbons on Mars. They have nuclear power? uh, where's the mine for the fuel?
Look, I grew up on science fiction, I watched the moon landings live (yep, I've been around a while). I would LOVE to see humans on Mars. But there are some "issues" that people just paper over with "oh well, they will be self-sufficient" w/o any thought as to what that means. I think we will get to Mars, maybe the rest of the solar system, but that's a ways off. The immediate future belongs to robots.
Imagine shipping people off to the harshest environment on earth. Do you think they would survive w/o resupply or support? Now, make that environment FAR harsher ... no air, hard to get water, bathed in radiation, nearest support is tens of millions of miles away. Do you still blithely say "no problem, they'll do fine"?
Right. Just like the inhabitants of Antarctica barter with information. Got it.
Well, then the inhabitants should also plan on paying full freight for food, air, water. Which will be billions.
That's fine. But if you want the American public to fund it, you need to justify it. Do you have skin in the game? Are you willing to do without in order to fund a trip to Mars? Or do you just want everyone else to pay for it?
Everyone accepts that people might die. What's hard to justify is spending a trillion dollars to send a few people to Mars, when for a few billion you can have rovers running for years. It's pretty simple math.