However, the basic science has the planetary surface heating up. That's the naive result. Clearly, it's more complicated than that, but given no clear evidence to the contrary the assumption has to be that we'll continue to heat up, not necessarily regularly, as we burn more fossil fuel.
Political interests and greed wouldn't affect approximately every climate scientist in the world similarly.
Sure. And, if I'm that good, I'm going to feel that I should be paid accordingly, and I'm going to be able to get a considerably better-paying job elsewhere, and that's going to be prominently featured in the next performance review. I'm not saying that, as a great worker, I should necessarily be allowed to go home early.
The problem with allowing any idiot a reasonably prestigious pulpit is that there are so many idiots out there, and lots of them like to talk. Are you suggesting that a University should give speaking venues to Flat Earthers on the same basis as astrophysicists? People who want to establish a monarchy on the same basis as people who want to deal inside a republic?
Okay, do I have to get serious about this? If an employer is illegally discriminating, there will be disparate results. Not all employers have disparate results. Therefore, the conditional probability of disparate results given illegal discrimination is higher than the conditional probability of disparate results given no illegal discrimination. That means it's evidence.
Under pragmatic social views, allowing private discrimination leads to more problems overall than it solves (it leads to fewer problems for the dominant subset, which makes it attractive to those who make the rules). The classic liberal case is that the business that discriminates on traits unrelated to the ability to do the job will be at a competitive disadvantage to one that doesn't, and that isn't enough of an effect to push any change. The competitive difference between a company that hires only white males as engineers and one that tries to hire the best engineers is mostly lost in the noise.
When I was doing COBOL, it was on a CDC Cyber machine that didn't have BCD (it had six-bit characters, and a complicated 6/12-bit scheme if you were so demanding as to want two cases), and hence no COMP-3. That proved to be a problem on one occasion, when the monthly tape from the state agency with multiple record types, added some COMP-3. (We had tools to deal with BCD, but not in varying record types.)
My experience with translators like that is that they put out unmaintainable code. You're better off dealing with the original and treating the translation as another compiler step.
The obvious solution for a shortage of COBOL programmers is to pay them more. If people wanted to go into COBOL for some reason, they'd find institutions to teach them.
One problem is that COBOL is usually not just a language, but a combination of things like CICS (if that's still around) and JCL. You can get a COBOL compiler easily enough, but setting up the IBM environment is expensive, so learning at home isn't really possible.
Deep inheritance hierarchies should be used only when called for. We have some. There are languages where everything inherits from something else, except for some ultimate base class, and that does encourage people to abuse inheritance.
If an object doesn't use much of what it inherits, why inherit? Use composition (including a class object as a data member) rather than inheritance when you can.
All code rots badly where people don't understand what was written, regardless of paradigm. At least with an inheritance hierarchy, if only one child class uses it, you can push it down the hierarchy.
A programming paradigm is a way of thinking about programming, not executing code. C is capable of supporting OO, but it's awkward. You might as well say C is a functional language because there have been compilers from Lisp into C.
COBOL is an excellent language for doing basic business things. You don't need threads, because the individual actions are so simple. Use different processes if you need to. Useful libraries? Enough. Integration with other components? Sure. IBM has a collection of components that interface well with COBOL.
How is it easier to prove age discrimination? A business will come up with some legal reason not to hire someone, or to lay someone off, and it's difficult to prove otherwise.
At one point, Trump was proposing an H1-B process that would prioritize the highest-paid H1-B positions.
That is the one Trump proposal I've seen that I really like. It would allow businesses to bring in people with high-demand skills while not depressing pay for US citizens and legal residents.
Under leftist legal theories, disparity of impact is evidence of possible discrimination, and often something to be investigated. Under right-wing theories, I suppose, evidence of illegality should be discarded if the company or rich person comes up with a lame excuse.
That, if you really meant it as you wrote it, marks you as a bad person. I suspect that, if you found yourself on the receiving end of social injustice, you'd complain.
Are you confusing shutting down speech and not allowing speech in a certain venue? You can make your own website and say what you like, but I don't have to post anything you write. The last free speech flap I saw was because the university in question didn't get enough advance notice of the speaker to find an adequate venue. Few people really want to ban free speech.
Given the election setups in the US, both those Constitutionally ordained and traditional, we get a two-party system. Over my lifetime, partisanship has gotten worse. The rhetoric about Trump, however, isn't as bad as the Republican Congressional determination to make Obama fail rather than make the US succeed.
Somebody who wasn't irretrievably conservative might notice that not all situations are the same, and that it's consistent for some people to have one attitude towards one situation and people who may differ in some way have another towards a situation that's different in some ways.
Similarly, I've heard farmers complain about too much rain and too little rain (at different times), so they're inconsistent.
It should be obvious to anyone except a conservative that ageism is when age per se is used for decision making where it should not be, not whether it favors young or old.
Making you sit through stupid meetings isn't a theft of time. Making you work extra hours to do your job in a timely fashion because management is idiots is.
we feel our jobs are harder and should be somewhat different than normal "day jobs".
Typically, our employers decide our jobs should be somewhat different from normal "day jobs", and pay us salaries rather than hourly pay. This is normally to cover cases where we work outside normal work hours, and is often used to pressure or require employees to work extra hours for free.
That's why most CS grads eventually look into startup or freelance work:
Most of the ones I know didn't look into that seriously, unless they can't find a job.
In most cases, working on outside projects will be grounds for some kind of disciplinary process,
I've never seen that happen. Nobody at work cares what I do on my own time. I have seen cases in some states where the company successfully claimed the outcome of the outside project, but that's illegal in mine.
Here in the US (north central part of the country), I've never had a real employment contract. It's been based on assumptions (I do what they say, and they give me a specific amount of money), with some side agreements. It never seemed to be a problem.
At my level, replacing people costs money. It would be expensive to pay a recruiter to come up with someone like me, that someone may not be as good, and that someone sure wouldn't know the code base, and would be less productive for a long time.
If I'm underperforming or something, my employer would save money on average by trying to work with me, rather than giving me the boot and hiring a replacement.
I don't really have a contract, but an agreement that I work for the company and they pay me a certain amount of money. I've been underpaid before, and my reaction was to bring it up in salary negotiations, and talk the employer into paying me more. Another option is to find another job where they pay me more like what I think I'm worth (and I may or may not succeed, depending partly on how accurate my assessment of myself is). It may be possible to negotiate time for personal projects, although that's less likely.
All of these ideas are based on agreement between employee and employer. They don't involve one side arbitrarily changing the deal without notifying the other side. That's dishonest.
Slashdot Mirror
There can be negative feedback, sure.
However, the basic science has the planetary surface heating up. That's the naive result. Clearly, it's more complicated than that, but given no clear evidence to the contrary the assumption has to be that we'll continue to heat up, not necessarily regularly, as we burn more fossil fuel.
Political interests and greed wouldn't affect approximately every climate scientist in the world similarly.
Sure. And, if I'm that good, I'm going to feel that I should be paid accordingly, and I'm going to be able to get a considerably better-paying job elsewhere, and that's going to be prominently featured in the next performance review. I'm not saying that, as a great worker, I should necessarily be allowed to go home early.
The problem with allowing any idiot a reasonably prestigious pulpit is that there are so many idiots out there, and lots of them like to talk. Are you suggesting that a University should give speaking venues to Flat Earthers on the same basis as astrophysicists? People who want to establish a monarchy on the same basis as people who want to deal inside a republic?
Okay, do I have to get serious about this? If an employer is illegally discriminating, there will be disparate results. Not all employers have disparate results. Therefore, the conditional probability of disparate results given illegal discrimination is higher than the conditional probability of disparate results given no illegal discrimination. That means it's evidence.
Under pragmatic social views, allowing private discrimination leads to more problems overall than it solves (it leads to fewer problems for the dominant subset, which makes it attractive to those who make the rules). The classic liberal case is that the business that discriminates on traits unrelated to the ability to do the job will be at a competitive disadvantage to one that doesn't, and that isn't enough of an effect to push any change. The competitive difference between a company that hires only white males as engineers and one that tries to hire the best engineers is mostly lost in the noise.
Your telepathy helmet is obviously on the blink. Examine the "approve/disapprove" circuits.
When I was doing COBOL, it was on a CDC Cyber machine that didn't have BCD (it had six-bit characters, and a complicated 6/12-bit scheme if you were so demanding as to want two cases), and hence no COMP-3. That proved to be a problem on one occasion, when the monthly tape from the state agency with multiple record types, added some COMP-3. (We had tools to deal with BCD, but not in varying record types.)
My experience with translators like that is that they put out unmaintainable code. You're better off dealing with the original and treating the translation as another compiler step.
The obvious solution for a shortage of COBOL programmers is to pay them more. If people wanted to go into COBOL for some reason, they'd find institutions to teach them.
One problem is that COBOL is usually not just a language, but a combination of things like CICS (if that's still around) and JCL. You can get a COBOL compiler easily enough, but setting up the IBM environment is expensive, so learning at home isn't really possible.
Deep inheritance hierarchies should be used only when called for. We have some. There are languages where everything inherits from something else, except for some ultimate base class, and that does encourage people to abuse inheritance.
If an object doesn't use much of what it inherits, why inherit? Use composition (including a class object as a data member) rather than inheritance when you can.
All code rots badly where people don't understand what was written, regardless of paradigm. At least with an inheritance hierarchy, if only one child class uses it, you can push it down the hierarchy.
A programming paradigm is a way of thinking about programming, not executing code. C is capable of supporting OO, but it's awkward. You might as well say C is a functional language because there have been compilers from Lisp into C.
COBOL is an excellent language for doing basic business things. You don't need threads, because the individual actions are so simple. Use different processes if you need to. Useful libraries? Enough. Integration with other components? Sure. IBM has a collection of components that interface well with COBOL.
As a progressive, I don't know what you're talking about. There should be no difference between government and other workers in cases like this.
How is it easier to prove age discrimination? A business will come up with some legal reason not to hire someone, or to lay someone off, and it's difficult to prove otherwise.
That is the one Trump proposal I've seen that I really like. It would allow businesses to bring in people with high-demand skills while not depressing pay for US citizens and legal residents.
Under leftist legal theories, disparity of impact is evidence of possible discrimination, and often something to be investigated. Under right-wing theories, I suppose, evidence of illegality should be discarded if the company or rich person comes up with a lame excuse.
That, if you really meant it as you wrote it, marks you as a bad person. I suspect that, if you found yourself on the receiving end of social injustice, you'd complain.
Are you confusing shutting down speech and not allowing speech in a certain venue? You can make your own website and say what you like, but I don't have to post anything you write. The last free speech flap I saw was because the university in question didn't get enough advance notice of the speaker to find an adequate venue. Few people really want to ban free speech.
Given the election setups in the US, both those Constitutionally ordained and traditional, we get a two-party system. Over my lifetime, partisanship has gotten worse. The rhetoric about Trump, however, isn't as bad as the Republican Congressional determination to make Obama fail rather than make the US succeed.
Somebody who wasn't irretrievably conservative might notice that not all situations are the same, and that it's consistent for some people to have one attitude towards one situation and people who may differ in some way have another towards a situation that's different in some ways.
Similarly, I've heard farmers complain about too much rain and too little rain (at different times), so they're inconsistent.
It should be obvious to anyone except a conservative that ageism is when age per se is used for decision making where it should not be, not whether it favors young or old.
Making you sit through stupid meetings isn't a theft of time. Making you work extra hours to do your job in a timely fashion because management is idiots is.
Typically, our employers decide our jobs should be somewhat different from normal "day jobs", and pay us salaries rather than hourly pay. This is normally to cover cases where we work outside normal work hours, and is often used to pressure or require employees to work extra hours for free.
Most of the ones I know didn't look into that seriously, unless they can't find a job.
I've never seen that happen. Nobody at work cares what I do on my own time. I have seen cases in some states where the company successfully claimed the outcome of the outside project, but that's illegal in mine.
If I complete my work fast because I'm that good, you're paying the people you need and my coworkers are not taking up the slack.
Here in the US (north central part of the country), I've never had a real employment contract. It's been based on assumptions (I do what they say, and they give me a specific amount of money), with some side agreements. It never seemed to be a problem.
At my level, replacing people costs money. It would be expensive to pay a recruiter to come up with someone like me, that someone may not be as good, and that someone sure wouldn't know the code base, and would be less productive for a long time.
If I'm underperforming or something, my employer would save money on average by trying to work with me, rather than giving me the boot and hiring a replacement.
I don't really have a contract, but an agreement that I work for the company and they pay me a certain amount of money. I've been underpaid before, and my reaction was to bring it up in salary negotiations, and talk the employer into paying me more. Another option is to find another job where they pay me more like what I think I'm worth (and I may or may not succeed, depending partly on how accurate my assessment of myself is). It may be possible to negotiate time for personal projects, although that's less likely.
All of these ideas are based on agreement between employee and employer. They don't involve one side arbitrarily changing the deal without notifying the other side. That's dishonest.