Real estate is often a safe investment. Avoid bubbles. My house is still going to be a nice house in its neighborhood twenty years from now, and that has inherent value. The cost of real estate will generally go up over time, with obvious exceptions. Moreover, my house is not only more valuable than it was before the bubble, it's provided my family with a nice place to live over the years.
Sounds likely. This means that laying them off has consequences. If you show your employees that the people who kept the old system working will be terminated when the old system is, you're going to have problems with whoever's assigned to keep the old system going on the next changeover. Whoever's selected is going to be more concerned with an updated resume than with the system they're supposed to maintain, and if one of the sacrificial IT workers quits early the company is going to be in a bind. Basically, you're making absolutely sure that vital roles are filled by people who are designated short-timers, and demonstrating that loyalty will be rewarded with unemployment.
So, while it would likely improve this quarter's earnings report to get rid of them, it would have an impact down the line.
Methuselah's Children was merely the marriage of people who had long-lived grandparents. That's hardly guaranteed. It might produce more centenarians, but not the lifespans of the Howard families. It's been a long time since I read Beyond This Horizon, and the Wikipedia article gives no details on how the breeding went on, or for that matter why it would work.
Germans considered undesirables were indeed killed, which is eugenics. There was also the program that rounded up a lot of healthy-looking blonde blue-eyed young women to mate with similar-looking SS men, which was positive eugenics (and perhaps a reward for making it into the SS).
It doesn't look like penicillin is in that bad a shape. The Wikipedia article calls it a family of antibiotics, and lists Amoxicillin as one of the varieties. I just finished a course of the stuff prescribed by my dentist.
Your idea of not having sex outside marriage has been shown to be completely unworkable. It's not only difficult to do in the current culture, it's been difficult in every culture I'm aware of. You're advocating something far less realistic than users that understand the Internet and don't get phished.
Any halfway realistic analysis shows that large numbers of people are going to have sex outside marriage, and that blaming them is pointless. They're human. It's stupid to pretend they aren't. Therefore, the best way to avoid STDs and pregnancy is to tell people about sex and how to practice safe sex. It's fine to try to dissuade them from sex when they're still young, but relying on that is the act of a sanctimonious idiot.
As far as a teenage pregnancy being aborted, what happens is that the teenager is no longer pregnant, and that can be a very good thing. The only reason you'd think necessarily it made it worse is rigid ideology and not paying attention to real people.
This "gig economy" is similar: young people work "on the side"
One of the goals of the gig economy is to replace regular jobs, so it's no longer "on the side". Getting a real low-skill job is harder than it used to be.
Science fiction writer Clifford Simak wrote westerns for a while at a sixth of a cent per word. There's reasons why people in those stories tended to empty their guns: writing "Bang!" six times got a whole cent.
Bringing manufacturing back into the US can make a lot of sense. It's got to be easier to run a complex automated production line here than in China. Bringing lots of low-end well-paying manufacturing jobs back? Not going to happen.
Not all people have access to public schools worthy of the name. The public schools were generally pretty good where we raised our son, but some of them are too neglected to give pupils a chance.
Perhaps a bigger problem with OWS was that they were against stuff, not for things. They never did come up with a reform plan that people could get behind. If they did, they could have formed a group in the Democratic party to push for financial reforms. The demonstrations would have helped get the movement going, but shutting them down wouldn't have stopped the Occupy movement.
So, we need new protections for the gig economy. It used to be that companies hired people to do jobs, rather than contract out to someone who contracted with individuals.
I'd say there's another distinct problem with safe memory management in C: it's nonlocal, and can't be verified in general, since telling if a memory block is freed or used after free can easily be changed into the Halting Problem. If you use C++ and smart pointers appropriately, you can generally set things up so that memory management is local, so that it's a lot easier to verify correctness.
Um, no. You're completely wrong. With Net Neutrality, any site that wants to compete with Google and/or Amazon can reach everybody. Without Net Neutrality, Google and Amazon can work out a relationship where search engines and online stores pay some for access to the ISPs' customers, and freeze out potential competition before it starts.
The web is being neutral. As.long as the net is neutral, neither Google nor Amazon can block the rise of competition. Google and Amazon are acting like jerks here, but companies acting like jerks is nothing new and not necessarily a problem.
So you're saying that we should vote every other November and shut the hell up on the other 729 days? That we should only express our political opinions by voting for one person who represents our interests better than the other guy?
The election was not about Net Neutrality. The people voting for Trump were not voting to get screwed in favor of large businesses.
If you've spoken out on any government action, like the ACA, you're being hypocritical.
The problem is that people like you get all technical about social problems, and try to discourage any dissent.
So, he apparently committed certain heinous acts, and what really bothers you is that the description some people use of him is technically inaccurate?
Some of the accusations against Franken are dubious. They're of behavior far short of stalking malls for underage girls, which is what got Moore banned from some malls. Franken acknowledged and apologized. Franken called for an investigation into his activities.
There are indeed hypocrites in both parties, but Franken doesn't show that.
A FOIA request disseminates information, which might well be misleading, to one person. A published paper disseminates information that has been carefully considered to a lot of people. I'd have thought the difference between the two would be glaringly obvious. I approve of the practice some public granting agencies are following by requiring publication in a free location within a year. It's my money and I want to see the results. I don't care about the intermediate steps.
A FOIA request of a research group is likely to require some actual expertise in the science that lawyers and administrators are likely not to have. I understand that you harbor irrational hostility towards universities, but let's not take it out on the researchers.
They announced a change, and a couple days later they announced a further change in a policy that hadn't been implemented yet. This may be stupid of them, but it isn't fraudulent. I'm not defending the changes, which do not look like good ideas to me, but they aren't fraudulent.
I know the place isn't going to turn into Venus. However, really bad things can happen short of that. I know exactly what that 97% consensus means, and I don't mention it when discussing likely effects. I'm not in favor of cutting CO2 emissions to zero now. What I am in favor of is carbon taxes that internalize an externality, so we can let market forces start cutting our CO2 emissions. That doesn't seem to me to be very extreme.
1998 was a very unusual year, and I don't know why the IPCC picked it. In any case, the models said we'd warm up, and we did. The models predicted less warming than we measured over a fourteen-year period, but that's short enough to be subject to natural variability. I've read that these predictions aren't considered real accurate for anything short of thirty years. The IPCC also notes that the warming over a longer period matches the models. You seem determined to cast this in the worst possible light.
People don't like the IPCC because the IPCC says things they don't want to hear. If the IPCC were really committed to talking up the dangers of global warming, they wouldn't have published what you pointed out. They wouldn't carefully quantify levels of confidence and probability in their predictions and conclusions. The fact is that most scientists think that we need to cut CO2 emissions quickly, as they thing getting more than 2 degrees C warmer would be bad. This is not the 97% consensus.
The critique of NASA bureaucracy I remember from Feynman is due to the Challenger disaster, which had nothing to do with the scientific method. Are you thinking of another one? Where would I find it?
Sounds like it worked out. The tech should not have hugged a woman without some sign that she wanted it (I tend to hold my arms out as if to hug, unless I know the woman), and got written up for it. Got a problem with that?
Slashdot Mirror
Real estate is often a safe investment. Avoid bubbles. My house is still going to be a nice house in its neighborhood twenty years from now, and that has inherent value. The cost of real estate will generally go up over time, with obvious exceptions. Moreover, my house is not only more valuable than it was before the bubble, it's provided my family with a nice place to live over the years.
Sounds likely. This means that laying them off has consequences. If you show your employees that the people who kept the old system working will be terminated when the old system is, you're going to have problems with whoever's assigned to keep the old system going on the next changeover. Whoever's selected is going to be more concerned with an updated resume than with the system they're supposed to maintain, and if one of the sacrificial IT workers quits early the company is going to be in a bind. Basically, you're making absolutely sure that vital roles are filled by people who are designated short-timers, and demonstrating that loyalty will be rewarded with unemployment.
So, while it would likely improve this quarter's earnings report to get rid of them, it would have an impact down the line.
Methuselah's Children was merely the marriage of people who had long-lived grandparents. That's hardly guaranteed. It might produce more centenarians, but not the lifespans of the Howard families. It's been a long time since I read Beyond This Horizon, and the Wikipedia article gives no details on how the breeding went on, or for that matter why it would work.
Germans considered undesirables were indeed killed, which is eugenics. There was also the program that rounded up a lot of healthy-looking blonde blue-eyed young women to mate with similar-looking SS men, which was positive eugenics (and perhaps a reward for making it into the SS).
It doesn't look like penicillin is in that bad a shape. The Wikipedia article calls it a family of antibiotics, and lists Amoxicillin as one of the varieties. I just finished a course of the stuff prescribed by my dentist.
You mean there's someone for mass murder of infants?
Your idea of not having sex outside marriage has been shown to be completely unworkable. It's not only difficult to do in the current culture, it's been difficult in every culture I'm aware of. You're advocating something far less realistic than users that understand the Internet and don't get phished.
Any halfway realistic analysis shows that large numbers of people are going to have sex outside marriage, and that blaming them is pointless. They're human. It's stupid to pretend they aren't. Therefore, the best way to avoid STDs and pregnancy is to tell people about sex and how to practice safe sex. It's fine to try to dissuade them from sex when they're still young, but relying on that is the act of a sanctimonious idiot.
As far as a teenage pregnancy being aborted, what happens is that the teenager is no longer pregnant, and that can be a very good thing. The only reason you'd think necessarily it made it worse is rigid ideology and not paying attention to real people.
One of the goals of the gig economy is to replace regular jobs, so it's no longer "on the side". Getting a real low-skill job is harder than it used to be.
Science fiction writer Clifford Simak wrote westerns for a while at a sixth of a cent per word. There's reasons why people in those stories tended to empty their guns: writing "Bang!" six times got a whole cent.
Bringing manufacturing back into the US can make a lot of sense. It's got to be easier to run a complex automated production line here than in China. Bringing lots of low-end well-paying manufacturing jobs back? Not going to happen.
Not all people have access to public schools worthy of the name. The public schools were generally pretty good where we raised our son, but some of them are too neglected to give pupils a chance.
Perhaps a bigger problem with OWS was that they were against stuff, not for things. They never did come up with a reform plan that people could get behind. If they did, they could have formed a group in the Democratic party to push for financial reforms. The demonstrations would have helped get the movement going, but shutting them down wouldn't have stopped the Occupy movement.
So, we need new protections for the gig economy. It used to be that companies hired people to do jobs, rather than contract out to someone who contracted with individuals.
Delete to end of line, and replace with "vid". Easily fixable by undoing.
I'd say there's another distinct problem with safe memory management in C: it's nonlocal, and can't be verified in general, since telling if a memory block is freed or used after free can easily be changed into the Halting Problem. If you use C++ and smart pointers appropriately, you can generally set things up so that memory management is local, so that it's a lot easier to verify correctness.
Um, no. You're completely wrong. With Net Neutrality, any site that wants to compete with Google and/or Amazon can reach everybody. Without Net Neutrality, Google and Amazon can work out a relationship where search engines and online stores pay some for access to the ISPs' customers, and freeze out potential competition before it starts.
The web is being neutral. As .long as the net is neutral, neither Google nor Amazon can block the rise of competition. Google and Amazon are acting like jerks here, but companies acting like jerks is nothing new and not necessarily a problem.
So you're saying that we should vote every other November and shut the hell up on the other 729 days? That we should only express our political opinions by voting for one person who represents our interests better than the other guy?
The election was not about Net Neutrality. The people voting for Trump were not voting to get screwed in favor of large businesses.
If you've spoken out on any government action, like the ACA, you're being hypocritical.
The problem is that people like you get all technical about social problems, and try to discourage any dissent.
So, he apparently committed certain heinous acts, and what really bothers you is that the description some people use of him is technically inaccurate?
Some of the accusations against Franken are dubious. They're of behavior far short of stalking malls for underage girls, which is what got Moore banned from some malls. Franken acknowledged and apologized. Franken called for an investigation into his activities.
There are indeed hypocrites in both parties, but Franken doesn't show that.
A FOIA request disseminates information, which might well be misleading, to one person. A published paper disseminates information that has been carefully considered to a lot of people. I'd have thought the difference between the two would be glaringly obvious. I approve of the practice some public granting agencies are following by requiring publication in a free location within a year. It's my money and I want to see the results. I don't care about the intermediate steps.
A FOIA request of a research group is likely to require some actual expertise in the science that lawyers and administrators are likely not to have. I understand that you harbor irrational hostility towards universities, but let's not take it out on the researchers.
They announced a change, and a couple days later they announced a further change in a policy that hadn't been implemented yet. This may be stupid of them, but it isn't fraudulent. I'm not defending the changes, which do not look like good ideas to me, but they aren't fraudulent.
I know the place isn't going to turn into Venus. However, really bad things can happen short of that. I know exactly what that 97% consensus means, and I don't mention it when discussing likely effects. I'm not in favor of cutting CO2 emissions to zero now. What I am in favor of is carbon taxes that internalize an externality, so we can let market forces start cutting our CO2 emissions. That doesn't seem to me to be very extreme.
1998 was a very unusual year, and I don't know why the IPCC picked it. In any case, the models said we'd warm up, and we did. The models predicted less warming than we measured over a fourteen-year period, but that's short enough to be subject to natural variability. I've read that these predictions aren't considered real accurate for anything short of thirty years. The IPCC also notes that the warming over a longer period matches the models. You seem determined to cast this in the worst possible light.
People don't like the IPCC because the IPCC says things they don't want to hear. If the IPCC were really committed to talking up the dangers of global warming, they wouldn't have published what you pointed out. They wouldn't carefully quantify levels of confidence and probability in their predictions and conclusions. The fact is that most scientists think that we need to cut CO2 emissions quickly, as they thing getting more than 2 degrees C warmer would be bad. This is not the 97% consensus.
The critique of NASA bureaucracy I remember from Feynman is due to the Challenger disaster, which had nothing to do with the scientific method. Are you thinking of another one? Where would I find it?
Yup. Part of being cautious, for me, is noting who's likely to be a problem. That saved me from hitting a pedestrian once.
Sounds like it worked out. The tech should not have hugged a woman without some sign that she wanted it (I tend to hold my arms out as if to hug, unless I know the woman), and got written up for it. Got a problem with that?