The left tends to have divergent opinions on things, and so it would be difficult for them to not tolerate people different from them. I don't know what you mean by "To disagree with them is to claim they're wrong", because I am claiming you're wrong as part of disagreeing with you. As for "they can't be wrong, because...", I've seen that attitude in lots of places, with lots of things coming after the "because". People who don't think they can be wrong frighten me, whether it's because of their religion or philosophy or their warped view of science or ideology or anything else.
Nobody called it hate when Carter put a hold on new visas. Arbitrarily saying visa holders can't enter the country is something else, particularly when it's unclear what is meant and unclear in practice.
In other words, the right-wingers are currently winning. Congress is Republican, the President is Republican, and nobody can be arsed to investigate blatant corruption. Therefore, Republicans are cheerful, while Democrats are really unhappy about the way things are going. I don't expect this to last, but the current crop of Republicans seems likely to do serious damage to the country to further their business interests. I've seen interest in destroying the EPA, ignoring science when inconvenient, and a dismantling of legal rights, including preventing local governments from protecting them.
I don't know where you get your stats, but the left-wingers that I know tend to be in happy long-term relationships.
I haven't seen people in general react badly to a very reasonable reply to a post (although there are some on both sides). I have seen more people whose idea of a very reasonable reply doesn't seem to accord with reality. You should look at some of those, and figure out why people may consider them unreasonable.
I'm not convinced by your list of luxury jobs. Chef? Most people want good food that doesn't cost too much, and don't care who or what is in the kitchen. Actor? We had them in ancient Greece, there's a limit on how many we want, and, besides, did you notice Princess Leia and Grand Moff Tarkin in Rogue One?
Scientific research of all sorts will require humans for the foreseeable future. Given enough money, it can absorb as many highly intelligent and motivated people who apply. That won't do much for most of the population. I know people who have found long-term relationships through dating sites. You aren't impressing me with the irreplaceable of human publishers by trotting out a major failure on their part. Lots of people have been finding employment from want ads and job sites for a long time.
There are other things robots aren't likely to replace, like subservience and sex slavery, that we don't really want to encourage.
We'll never have a post-scarcity economy. First, some things can't be provided in indefinitely large quantities. There are better and worse places to live, and the better places are limited. Second, we'll keep moving the goalposts. In some respects, we are in a post-scarcity economy, since a whole lot of stuff in general has become cheaper and/or better and definitely more widely available.
C hangs on to it for historical reasons. C++ is deliberately mostly compatible with C, and therefore retains most of the warts. I have no idea why Java etc. copied bad syntax from C.
Anthropology shows us that, when society can exist with little labor, people do little. Hunter-gatherer societies tend to have tons of leisure time compared to agricultural, industrial, or more modern societies.
Robots can take most unskilled jobs right now. Agriculture used to take up most of the population, most doing things that required strength but little skill. Industry used to take up most of the population, with people doing routine jobs with machinery. With the exception of some produce picking, agriculture requires few people, but they need skill. All those assembly lines are cheaper to automate, and automation can produce better quality and much more varied products. The US still has a very large manufacturing sector, but it doesn't employ anywhere near as many people as it did.
There are skilled jobs that go away. What my company does would have previously required a small army of well-paid tool and die makers, making it way uneconomical, but it's possible to work much faster and cheaper with computer-controlled machine tools.
What we're seeing is not farm workers getting a higher-paid job in the factory, but people who would be working in a factory getting lower-paid service jobs, because a large number of people can't contribute much more than a robot can, and robots continue to get cheaper and better.
So why is it that literally every other developed country has something like that, and their health care is so much less expensive than ours? Are you claiming that the US is uniquely inept in the world?
You can get a $30K vehicle today that will avoid a good many accidents for you, and of course if you manage anyway most modern vehicles will protect you very well.
Some people need the paycheck, and can't find an employer they can trust immediately. Some figure they have a better job than they're likely to get elsewhere, and are willing to take the chance. On my first job, there was a round of layoffs, and management promised it would be the last, and it was until the end of the next month. Morale among the newly hired dropped like a rock.
I've never seen that happen personally. What happens is that the person who has given notice works another two weeks, and never has precisely two weeks' work to do. In some circumstances it would make sense to get the guy out the door immediately, but not anywhere I've worked.
I don't know of open source licenses that require divulging of private changes. The GPLs require that you distribute source code if you distribute binaries or other processed code, and that all distribution be under the appropriate GPL. BSD-type licenses have no such restrictions. If a company modifies F/OSS for private use, and does not distribute, nobody outside the company has the right to copy it.
If he developed code outside of work, he may or may not be entitled to it, depending on the law in the jurisdiction, the details of how he developed it, and any contract signed.
Names keep changing, but the thing persists. I've been diagnosed with dysthymia, neurotic depression, and dysthymic disorder that I noticed on the sheets, all for the same thing. I believe that what used to be "Asperger's" is now part of "Autism Spectrum Disorder".
That isn't communication by entanglement. That's making existing communication tamper-evident using entanglement. Information flows in the normal way, but uses quantum properties to ensure that nobody can resend a photon accurately once read. If Eve is trying to listen in on the key transmission from Alice to Bob, Bob will get a garbled key.
Most claims about the difficulty of publishing papers against AGW are based on the political climate of the US, so I may have jumped to a false conclusion about your reasoning, in which case I apologize.
I followed your link, and found nothing I could readily understand. There was a list of papers, claimed to be in peer-reviewed journals, mostly classified as "rebutted", with no context. If these are anti-AGW papers, then it would seem that anti-AGW papers can be published, contrary to what you were saying. It is not important to debunk every paper that has bad science in it, if that's what you're thinking.
You can look at the evidence for yourself. The basic physics behind AGW is dead simple. If you don't bother, and just go on vague generalities, don't expect us to pay attention to your opinions.
Slashdot Mirror
The left tends to have divergent opinions on things, and so it would be difficult for them to not tolerate people different from them. I don't know what you mean by "To disagree with them is to claim they're wrong", because I am claiming you're wrong as part of disagreeing with you. As for "they can't be wrong, because ...", I've seen that attitude in lots of places, with lots of things coming after the "because". People who don't think they can be wrong frighten me, whether it's because of their religion or philosophy or their warped view of science or ideology or anything else.
Nobody called it hate when Carter put a hold on new visas. Arbitrarily saying visa holders can't enter the country is something else, particularly when it's unclear what is meant and unclear in practice.
Context matters, and that includes who said what.
In other words, the right-wingers are currently winning. Congress is Republican, the President is Republican, and nobody can be arsed to investigate blatant corruption. Therefore, Republicans are cheerful, while Democrats are really unhappy about the way things are going. I don't expect this to last, but the current crop of Republicans seems likely to do serious damage to the country to further their business interests. I've seen interest in destroying the EPA, ignoring science when inconvenient, and a dismantling of legal rights, including preventing local governments from protecting them.
I don't know where you get your stats, but the left-wingers that I know tend to be in happy long-term relationships.
I haven't seen people in general react badly to a very reasonable reply to a post (although there are some on both sides). I have seen more people whose idea of a very reasonable reply doesn't seem to accord with reality. You should look at some of those, and figure out why people may consider them unreasonable.
I'm not convinced by your list of luxury jobs. Chef? Most people want good food that doesn't cost too much, and don't care who or what is in the kitchen. Actor? We had them in ancient Greece, there's a limit on how many we want, and, besides, did you notice Princess Leia and Grand Moff Tarkin in Rogue One?
Scientific research of all sorts will require humans for the foreseeable future. Given enough money, it can absorb as many highly intelligent and motivated people who apply. That won't do much for most of the population. I know people who have found long-term relationships through dating sites. You aren't impressing me with the irreplaceable of human publishers by trotting out a major failure on their part. Lots of people have been finding employment from want ads and job sites for a long time.
There are other things robots aren't likely to replace, like subservience and sex slavery, that we don't really want to encourage.
We'll never have a post-scarcity economy. First, some things can't be provided in indefinitely large quantities. There are better and worse places to live, and the better places are limited. Second, we'll keep moving the goalposts. In some respects, we are in a post-scarcity economy, since a whole lot of stuff in general has become cheaper and/or better and definitely more widely available.
C hangs on to it for historical reasons. C++ is deliberately mostly compatible with C, and therefore retains most of the warts. I have no idea why Java etc. copied bad syntax from C.
Anthropology shows us that, when society can exist with little labor, people do little. Hunter-gatherer societies tend to have tons of leisure time compared to agricultural, industrial, or more modern societies.
Organic veggies aren't any better than inorganic for you, except that the organic stuff typically takes less time from farm to market.
Robots can take most unskilled jobs right now. Agriculture used to take up most of the population, most doing things that required strength but little skill. Industry used to take up most of the population, with people doing routine jobs with machinery. With the exception of some produce picking, agriculture requires few people, but they need skill. All those assembly lines are cheaper to automate, and automation can produce better quality and much more varied products. The US still has a very large manufacturing sector, but it doesn't employ anywhere near as many people as it did.
There are skilled jobs that go away. What my company does would have previously required a small army of well-paid tool and die makers, making it way uneconomical, but it's possible to work much faster and cheaper with computer-controlled machine tools.
What we're seeing is not farm workers getting a higher-paid job in the factory, but people who would be working in a factory getting lower-paid service jobs, because a large number of people can't contribute much more than a robot can, and robots continue to get cheaper and better.
So why is it that literally every other developed country has something like that, and their health care is so much less expensive than ours? Are you claiming that the US is uniquely inept in the world?
You can get a $30K vehicle today that will avoid a good many accidents for you, and of course if you manage anyway most modern vehicles will protect you very well.
Yup. (2) is unsustainable. If we don't get (1), we get (3), and at some point the cycle will turn to (1), which is actually reasonably stable.
Some of us are much better at technical tasks than we are at networking.
I almost never see anyone outside the field who realizes how much trust organizations have to put into IT and likely developers.
Some people need the paycheck, and can't find an employer they can trust immediately. Some figure they have a better job than they're likely to get elsewhere, and are willing to take the chance. On my first job, there was a round of layoffs, and management promised it would be the last, and it was until the end of the next month. Morale among the newly hired dropped like a rock.
I've never seen that happen personally. What happens is that the person who has given notice works another two weeks, and never has precisely two weeks' work to do. In some circumstances it would make sense to get the guy out the door immediately, but not anywhere I've worked.
I don't know of open source licenses that require divulging of private changes. The GPLs require that you distribute source code if you distribute binaries or other processed code, and that all distribution be under the appropriate GPL. BSD-type licenses have no such restrictions. If a company modifies F/OSS for private use, and does not distribute, nobody outside the company has the right to copy it.
If he developed code outside of work, he may or may not be entitled to it, depending on the law in the jurisdiction, the details of how he developed it, and any contract signed.
Names keep changing, but the thing persists. I've been diagnosed with dysthymia, neurotic depression, and dysthymic disorder that I noticed on the sheets, all for the same thing. I believe that what used to be "Asperger's" is now part of "Autism Spectrum Disorder".
I have no idea why you think socialism is a totalitarian ideology. Marxism-Leninism certainly is, but there's lots more to socialism than that.
That isn't communication by entanglement. That's making existing communication tamper-evident using entanglement. Information flows in the normal way, but uses quantum properties to ensure that nobody can resend a photon accurately once read. If Eve is trying to listen in on the key transmission from Alice to Bob, Bob will get a garbled key.
Most claims about the difficulty of publishing papers against AGW are based on the political climate of the US, so I may have jumped to a false conclusion about your reasoning, in which case I apologize.
I followed your link, and found nothing I could readily understand. There was a list of papers, claimed to be in peer-reviewed journals, mostly classified as "rebutted", with no context. If these are anti-AGW papers, then it would seem that anti-AGW papers can be published, contrary to what you were saying. It is not important to debunk every paper that has bad science in it, if that's what you're thinking.
You can look at the evidence for yourself. The basic physics behind AGW is dead simple. If you don't bother, and just go on vague generalities, don't expect us to pay attention to your opinions.
Got a cite for that cooling trend? I generally go with data I can look at rather than what an AC says his best friend said.
I'm going to be programming in C++ right after I post this comment.