I prefer thinking about the NSA merging with Weekly World News: "Bat Boy completes spying mission in Iran, destroys Iranian nuclear plant singlehandedly"
I'm almost certain afidel is in a First World country in the Northern Hemisphere. Therefore, for him, having the entire Northern Hemisphere uninhabitable is a bigger deal than the war and starvation which will mostly occur in Third World countries.
It's sort of like how many people, if given the chance to vote between spending millions of dollars feeding starving Africans, or spending millions of dollars to revive Firefly, might pick Firefly.
Why is it that most people in the west (who are supposed to be the best informed), are misinformed about Africa? Why?
3 big reasons: 1. Most have never been there. 2. Thinking about the damage that Europeans and Americans have done to Africa would challenge the belief that those societies are morally good. 3. It's hardly ever taught, at least in US schools.
You misunderstand my point, which was about artificially lowering the price of gasoline based on externalizing costs.
For instance, if BP is pumping oil out of an oil field in Iraq, right now they are benefiting from the security provided by Xe contractors paid for by tax dollars. If they had to pay for that security, that would cost them, say, $100 million, then the cost of the, say, 2 million barrels of oil they get from that is actually $50 lower than it should be, which translates to a few dollars per gallon of gasoline.
Actually, it did have an effect - when gas started to get to about $4 per gallon, there were several studies that determined that people responded by driving less. This makes sense, because driving less is an adjustment that's usually much faster and easier to make than buying a new car.
However, I for one would be interested to find out what the true cost of a gallon of gasoline is. Not just the price I pay at the pump, but the price I pay in taxes to support the wars where oil is secured, the price I pay in taxes to support the Medicare and Medicaid costs of those harmed by the pollution, the higher prices I pay for anything coming from anywhere near the Gulf of Mexico because the rig exploded, etc. Yes, in theory all those prices should get factored into what I see at the gas pump, but in practice that simply doesn't happen.
Truman: Are you planning to make some kind of alien-human hybrid? Zoidberg: Are you coming onto me? Truman: Hot crackers, I take exception to that! Zoidberg: I'm not hearing a "no".
Is using code snippets from the internet really an issue?
Yes, it is: 1. Copyrights could come back to bite you and your company. 2. If you don't know and understand what you've just copied, you aren't able to fix it or change it. It's a quick path to cargo cult programming, where you do stuff without knowing why.
That's somewhat different from using an applicable library, particularly an open-source library, where it's not just what 1 random programmer wrote for an issue, but typically something that's gone through a lot of vetting first.
It helps if you have 3 months salary in reserve for emergencies like you should so you don't end up entering a bad situation out of desperation.
3 months isn't really sufficient these days. You really need to be thinking more along the lines of at least a year or 2.
I know this from experience: I went from having 6 months of reserves to having to take a job that put me in a really bad situation for a while - their basic M.O. was to hire desperate people, work them like crazy for a few months, and then fire them before the benefits kicked in (at a rate of at least 1 person every 2 weeks). I accepted that position for 1 reason: It was better than starving.
‘If I’d been the whiting,’ said Alice, whose thoughts were still running on the song, ‘I’d have said to the porpoise, “Keep back, please: we don’t want you with us!”’ ‘They were obliged to have him with them,’ the Mock Turtle said: ‘no wise fish would go anywhere without a porpoise.’ ‘Wouldn’t it really?’ said Alice in a tone of great surprise. ‘Of course not,’ said the Mock Turtle: ‘why, if a fish came to me , and told me he was going a journey, I should say “With what porpoise?”’ ‘Don’t you mean “purpose”?’ said Alice. ‘I mean what I say,’ the Mock Turtle replied in an offended tone.
Alternate scenario: 1. Relative newcomer Smith is outperforming accomplished schmoozer Jones significantly and consistently. 2. Jones doesn't want Smith around because Smith is making him look bad. 3. Jones does some searches on Smith, finds the profile. 4. Jones goes to the mutual boss of Smith and Jones, and shows the boss Smith's profile. Jones draws on his past schmoozing success 5. Boss sacks Smith. The threat to Jones is eliminated.
About the only rationale that seems to make any sense is pure spite -- the employer is pissed that a good employee (high output at sub-market wages) has to be replaced with one with unknown or only average output at market prices, and firing the employee is a good way to sow chaos in their life and possibly make their new job search more complicated.
The purpose of this behavior is to prevent other employees who might be considering leaving from even starting to look, because to do so risks their current job. It's in a high-value employee's interest to keep their ears open for better positions at all times. It's in employer's interest to keep the high-value employee thinking that their options are continuing to work for the employer without making a fuss, or long-term unemployment.
To clarify: A lot of people who call themselves 'conservative' or 'Republican' are really libertarians, and Ron Paul comes closest to representing those views within the Republican Party primary. He may also be a whackjob, but you're getting awfully close to No True Scotsman territory there.
Why are we still working 40 hour weeks? The average work week went from 100 to 50 hours in the 19th century, with 19th century technology!
That one's easy: the shift from 100 hours to 50 hours per week was largely the result of mass protests and unionization, and then codified in labor laws. Occupy Wall St is peanuts compared to the kinds of mass protests that were going on in the late 19th century.
Actually, the 3 who did well in Iowa represent 3 different strains of thought within the Republican Party: - Mitt Romney represents corporations and business interests. His electoral base are the sort of moderately successful business owners and middle managers you'd find a local meeting of the Chamber of Commerce, while his monetary base is fat cat corporations. - Rick Santorum represents the religious right. His electoral base are members of evangelical churches. He hasn't raised all that much cash, but has some monetary support from fat cat corporations and from evangelical Christian groups. - Ron Paul represents the libertarians. His electoral base is a mix of independent farmers and suburbanites who believe they don't depend on the government for anything. He also has nowhere near as much money as Romney, and interestingly is funded almost half by small contributors.
Not in the Republican party, but relevant: - Barack Obama represents the 'Washington consensus' on most issues. His electoral base are urban residents, racial minorities (those constituencies overlap but are not identical), and educated voters who don't consider themselves business management. His monetary base is fat cat corporations.
Libertarians don't demand control over anyone else's affairs, but they do seek to get as close to complete control over their own affairs as reasonably possible. So it could easily be that engineers by nature want to control their own personal universe, and thus are libertarians when not in power and technocrats when in power.
Slashdot Mirror
Fake Plastic Trees
I prefer thinking about the NSA merging with Weekly World News: "Bat Boy completes spying mission in Iran, destroys Iranian nuclear plant singlehandedly"
"make Greenland green again"
Greenland wasn't green when the Vikings first landed on it - Eric the Red named it "Greenland" for marketing purposes.
I'm almost certain afidel is in a First World country in the Northern Hemisphere. Therefore, for him, having the entire Northern Hemisphere uninhabitable is a bigger deal than the war and starvation which will mostly occur in Third World countries.
It's sort of like how many people, if given the chance to vote between spending millions of dollars feeding starving Africans, or spending millions of dollars to revive Firefly, might pick Firefly.
Stephen Hawking has appeared on The Simpsons, Futurama, and Star Trek TNG, giving him a Bacon Number of 3 and a Bacon-Erdos Number of 7.
Why is it that most people in the west (who are supposed to be the best informed), are misinformed about Africa? Why?
3 big reasons:
1. Most have never been there.
2. Thinking about the damage that Europeans and Americans have done to Africa would challenge the belief that those societies are morally good.
3. It's hardly ever taught, at least in US schools.
You misunderstand my point, which was about artificially lowering the price of gasoline based on externalizing costs.
For instance, if BP is pumping oil out of an oil field in Iraq, right now they are benefiting from the security provided by Xe contractors paid for by tax dollars. If they had to pay for that security, that would cost them, say, $100 million, then the cost of the, say, 2 million barrels of oil they get from that is actually $50 lower than it should be, which translates to a few dollars per gallon of gasoline.
$4.30-4.75 a US GALLON, in CANADIAN DOLLARS (worth less than US Dollars).
Actually, $1 US is worth $1.02 Loonies, so that price is higher than you think.
Actually, it did have an effect - when gas started to get to about $4 per gallon, there were several studies that determined that people responded by driving less. This makes sense, because driving less is an adjustment that's usually much faster and easier to make than buying a new car.
However, I for one would be interested to find out what the true cost of a gallon of gasoline is. Not just the price I pay at the pump, but the price I pay in taxes to support the wars where oil is secured, the price I pay in taxes to support the Medicare and Medicaid costs of those harmed by the pollution, the higher prices I pay for anything coming from anywhere near the Gulf of Mexico because the rig exploded, etc. Yes, in theory all those prices should get factored into what I see at the gas pump, but in practice that simply doesn't happen.
The best part of your linked article:
"There are notices posted at the entrance to the station that the inspection is in progress."
Terrorist in Boston: "Well, I guess we should bring our bombs to Downtown Crossing instead of Park St!"
I mean, the way they're doing this, they're absolutely guaranteeing they won't actually catch a reasonably non-stupid terrorist.
Truman: Are you planning to make some kind of alien-human hybrid?
Zoidberg: Are you coming onto me?
Truman: Hot crackers, I take exception to that!
Zoidberg: I'm not hearing a "no".
Could the employee escape from a paper bag if necessary?
But why ask brainteasers for that one? Just put them in a paper bag and see if they escape!
Is using code snippets from the internet really an issue?
Yes, it is:
1. Copyrights could come back to bite you and your company.
2. If you don't know and understand what you've just copied, you aren't able to fix it or change it. It's a quick path to cargo cult programming, where you do stuff without knowing why.
That's somewhat different from using an applicable library, particularly an open-source library, where it's not just what 1 random programmer wrote for an issue, but typically something that's gone through a lot of vetting first.
It helps if you have 3 months salary in reserve for emergencies like you should so you don't end up entering a bad situation out of desperation.
3 months isn't really sufficient these days. You really need to be thinking more along the lines of at least a year or 2.
I know this from experience: I went from having 6 months of reserves to having to take a job that put me in a really bad situation for a while - their basic M.O. was to hire desperate people, work them like crazy for a few months, and then fire them before the benefits kicked in (at a rate of at least 1 person every 2 weeks). I accepted that position for 1 reason: It was better than starving.
Everything, of course. Have you never read Alice in Wonderland?
‘If I’d been the whiting,’ said Alice, whose thoughts were still running on the song, ‘I’d have said to the porpoise, “Keep back, please: we don’t want you with us!”’
‘They were obliged to have him with them,’ the Mock Turtle said: ‘no wise fish would go anywhere without a porpoise.’
‘Wouldn’t it really?’ said Alice in a tone of great surprise.
‘Of course not,’ said the Mock Turtle: ‘why, if a fish came to me , and told me he was going a journey, I should say “With what porpoise?”’
‘Don’t you mean “purpose”?’ said Alice.
‘I mean what I say,’ the Mock Turtle replied in an offended tone.
Alternate scenario:
1. Relative newcomer Smith is outperforming accomplished schmoozer Jones significantly and consistently.
2. Jones doesn't want Smith around because Smith is making him look bad.
3. Jones does some searches on Smith, finds the profile.
4. Jones goes to the mutual boss of Smith and Jones, and shows the boss Smith's profile. Jones draws on his past schmoozing success
5. Boss sacks Smith. The threat to Jones is eliminated.
Smith finds out why he was sacked.
About the only rationale that seems to make any sense is pure spite -- the employer is pissed that a good employee (high output at sub-market wages) has to be replaced with one with unknown or only average output at market prices, and firing the employee is a good way to sow chaos in their life and possibly make their new job search more complicated.
The purpose of this behavior is to prevent other employees who might be considering leaving from even starting to look, because to do so risks their current job. It's in a high-value employee's interest to keep their ears open for better positions at all times. It's in employer's interest to keep the high-value employee thinking that their options are continuing to work for the employer without making a fuss, or long-term unemployment.
This is much easier to pull off in a recession.
To clarify: A lot of people who call themselves 'conservative' or 'Republican' are really libertarians, and Ron Paul comes closest to representing those views within the Republican Party primary. He may also be a whackjob, but you're getting awfully close to No True Scotsman territory there.
It's worth noting that in his previous race that Obama's monetary base was made up hugely of small donors.
No, actually, it wasn't. But don't trust me, check this out: donor demographics
Why are we still working 40 hour weeks? The average work week went from 100 to 50 hours in the 19th century, with 19th century technology!
That one's easy: the shift from 100 hours to 50 hours per week was largely the result of mass protests and unionization, and then codified in labor laws. Occupy Wall St is peanuts compared to the kinds of mass protests that were going on in the late 19th century.
1. What do you mean by "well"? Some people mean "we got the guy that most people voted for in office". Some people mean "my guy won".
2. Which "last time" were you talking about? Bush-Gore, Coleman-Franken, or something else?
Actually, the 3 who did well in Iowa represent 3 different strains of thought within the Republican Party:
- Mitt Romney represents corporations and business interests. His electoral base are the sort of moderately successful business owners and middle managers you'd find a local meeting of the Chamber of Commerce, while his monetary base is fat cat corporations.
- Rick Santorum represents the religious right. His electoral base are members of evangelical churches. He hasn't raised all that much cash, but has some monetary support from fat cat corporations and from evangelical Christian groups.
- Ron Paul represents the libertarians. His electoral base is a mix of independent farmers and suburbanites who believe they don't depend on the government for anything. He also has nowhere near as much money as Romney, and interestingly is funded almost half by small contributors.
Not in the Republican party, but relevant:
- Barack Obama represents the 'Washington consensus' on most issues. His electoral base are urban residents, racial minorities (those constituencies overlap but are not identical), and educated voters who don't consider themselves business management. His monetary base is fat cat corporations.
According to Ohio Revised Code 3101.01(A), effective in 2004, marrying VMs and ATMs is illegal.
It's a place similar to the Monty Python sketch where people go for abuse or an argument.
No it isn't.
Libertarians don't demand control over anyone else's affairs, but they do seek to get as close to complete control over their own affairs as reasonably possible. So it could easily be that engineers by nature want to control their own personal universe, and thus are libertarians when not in power and technocrats when in power.