What you seem to be suggesting is that anyone who tells you what to do is acting as an authoritarian
Someone who tells me what to do and tries to base it on authority is acting as an authoritarian. The authority may be a person or an organization or an ideology, but if the idea is to make me do what someone else says because someone else says it it's authoritarianism. (Yes, I'm leaving out some exceptions and nuances. Deal with it.)
We need some level of authoritarianism, such as telling people not to kill or maim each other. In most social activities, we need some. It isn't all bad, and most libertarians would want some (they tend to be big on a court system). It would be a lot simpler if we could just reject it entirely and live in a cooperative anarchy, but that's going to last maybe five minutes before it starts breaking down, probably much less.
The Republicans could be authoritarian, as was seen by the Reign of Terror after the French Revolution. They adhered to different authority. Right-wingers tend to like traditional authority, but then they tend to like traditional everything. It may be that left-wingers tend to be less authoritarian, but I really can't say. We've all got our own beliefs, and an authority saying things we agree with is going to seem a lot less authoritarian than an authority saying things we don't agree with.
It's strange. I always thought that a Christian should believe that that Jesus guy had a clue as to what he was talking about, which is clearly not true of prosperity gospel believers.
In which case abortion is not about ethics, since there are widely varying beliefs in society. There is no generally accepted rule of conduct for them, the closest being that early-term abortions should be allowed.
The idea that humans can keep up with all new threats is utter shite and bollocks. I assume from your attitude that you test all your food to make sure it isn't poisoned and check your car for car bombs whenever you get in it. If not, you're relying on others to either do their jobs or not be actively malicious. To have a functioning society, we need some level of trust in each other.
Sure. But for the same amount of energy you can pump several times as much heat in or out.
Depending on the temperature differential and the efficiency of the heat pump. It gets too cold around here for standard heat pumps to be as efficient as burning stuff. There are places where geothermal energy is close enough to be useful in a heat pump, but not where my house is.
However, it's still cheaper to heat. I've got a portable heat pump in my dining room, primarily used to cool it (although we've used it to warm up when we had boiler problems). It takes a certain amount of power, which comes out as heat somewhere. If it's inside, it reduces the cooling efficiency and raises the heating efficiency slightly.
In which case you'd think a climate scientist would go through the papers and show the problems. Not all are ignorant of statistics, and it wouldn't take all that much money to check the statistics. It would be a way for a new climate scientist to make a big splash in the field.
So, going from your hypothesis, we can make reasonable predictions and find them to differ from observation. Scientifically, then, what you say is probably wrong.
First, there's some reason to believe we're in a very slow temperature decline due to natural causes, so the natural climate change won't necessarily take us in the same direction. Second, the problem is not so much that things are warming up as that things are warming up really fast. If the temperature change took place over several thousand years, it wouldn't be nearly as significant.as a change over a century.
If AGW is as bad as you say, worst crisis ever, an existential threat to the species - then you should all cut your energy use by 25%, if not more.
It isn't an existential threat to the species. Homo sapiens is extremely adaptable (frequently by technological means) and has proven to be tough to eradicate.
Also, if I were to reduce my energy usage, nothing noticeable would happen. This is a "tragedy of the commons" situation, and we need collective action.
Of course they can [individual policy premiums as cheap as group policy premiums], for reasonable coverage.
And then you proceed to show how an individual plan in Switzerland can be less expensive than a group plan in the US. A group is more statistically reliable than an individual, so group insurance is less risky.
Another explanation is that you are not perceiving typical behavior, or interpreting what you're seeing properly. "Leftist" covers quite a lot of people, who don't necessarily agree with each other, and some are louder than others. The media of course shows what will grab eyeballs, so you can't rely on it to tell you what's really going on.
What is this "extraordinarily harsh punishment" you speak of? If you say something I don't like, I'm perfectly free to disagree with you and call you names.
Some movies just seem better to me with a larger audience, for whatever reason. This still isn't a good reason for finding a sparsely attended showing rather than watching it at home.
The pi symbol could easily be replaced with something that depicts the representation between radius and circumference,
Which would not be representational for all the other mathematical uses of pi, a number that shows up a lot in places you might not expect, such as the normal distribution.
Not true; there are some, usually smaller companies (and not all of them). No corporation can be trusted to keep up its current policies, but the current policies might be human-friendly.
It's not a universal rule. My usual experiences with HR have been positive, and I've often found HR people to be likable. I have no idea whether my experiences or yours are more representative.
Corporate health plans are group insurance, so the insurance company knows it's dealing with a group of people not selected for bad health. With individual insurance, sick people will tend to buy high-coverage insurance and healthy people will tend to buy low-premium insurance or no insurance, so high-coverage plans wind up being really expensive and maybe unaffordable. It's called "adverse selection". The only way to have reasonably priced high-coverage insurance is to have some way to include both sick and healthy people. Some examples would be the employees of company X and their dependents, or the entire population. Individual plans can't be as inexpensive as group plans.
When MS-DOS was introduced (as PC-DOS), it was a decent OS. The IBM PC was a somewhat more powerful version of the PCs already around, typically based on Intel, Zilog, more Mostek CPUs. The memory limits were small because of the CPUs available. The 8088 could address 1M memory rather than 64K, although in a clunky manner (and MS-DOS only allowed the user 640K). Few people wanted to pay for more than 64K anyway when the IBM PC was introduced. There was no hardware memory protection, and little hardware support for multitasking. Doing these things in software would have been a burden on CPUs already not too fast.
MS-DOS may not have kept up with the times well, but its competitors didn't either.
I'm not an expert here, but I suspect there's a great deal of skill involved in a really good blowjob. They aren't all the same quality, although I've known guys who were happy just being able to ejaculate in a woman's mouth.
Not if it helps you understand things for the rest of your career. Formal education tends to cover principles that will come in handy later, stuff that on-the-job training doesn't provide. There are, of course, crap computer science programs.
Find an intelligent person and they can learn whatever they need in a matter of days or weeks.
Nope. Some things can be learned fast, some take years. If you're asking a smart person to write in a language with concepts he or she has seen before, it will be fast. If you're asking that person to get fluent in difficult concepts, it can take years.
Writing good code isn't really that hard. It's just machine building--an exercise in simple logic.
If it's a small project, you're right. However, projects can get arbitrarily big until the people writing and maintaining them are at their limits. That's where the real benefits come in, and good code in them is much more difficult.
It was a lot easier to understand what went on. When I had Z80 computers, I knew what the CPU was doing and for how long. I knew how long it took to access a memory location.
Now that I have i5 computers, I don't know what the CPU is doing at any time, and I don't know how long it would take to access a memory location.
I have removed the Mythical Man-Month from my recommendations. There's chapters that are irrelevant because of some technical advances. There's stuff it gets wrong (for example, it comes out fully against information hiding and for tight coupling). There's a lot of stuff in there that has been absorbed into common wisdom. There's still good stuff that hasn't been assimilated, but picking it out is going to be difficult for people who don't know it already.
Slashdot Mirror
While the Right tends to favor organized religion more, there are plenty of religious people on the Left.
Someone who tells me what to do and tries to base it on authority is acting as an authoritarian. The authority may be a person or an organization or an ideology, but if the idea is to make me do what someone else says because someone else says it it's authoritarianism. (Yes, I'm leaving out some exceptions and nuances. Deal with it.)
We need some level of authoritarianism, such as telling people not to kill or maim each other. In most social activities, we need some. It isn't all bad, and most libertarians would want some (they tend to be big on a court system). It would be a lot simpler if we could just reject it entirely and live in a cooperative anarchy, but that's going to last maybe five minutes before it starts breaking down, probably much less.
The Republicans could be authoritarian, as was seen by the Reign of Terror after the French Revolution. They adhered to different authority. Right-wingers tend to like traditional authority, but then they tend to like traditional everything. It may be that left-wingers tend to be less authoritarian, but I really can't say. We've all got our own beliefs, and an authority saying things we agree with is going to seem a lot less authoritarian than an authority saying things we don't agree with.
It's strange. I always thought that a Christian should believe that that Jesus guy had a clue as to what he was talking about, which is clearly not true of prosperity gospel believers.
Some do. They tend to not be in the news because of it.
In which case abortion is not about ethics, since there are widely varying beliefs in society. There is no generally accepted rule of conduct for them, the closest being that early-term abortions should be allowed.
RTFS. The plaintiffs claimed that the data was collected with email addresses attached. This isn't anonymous data collection.
The idea that humans can keep up with all new threats is utter shite and bollocks. I assume from your attitude that you test all your food to make sure it isn't poisoned and check your car for car bombs whenever you get in it. If not, you're relying on others to either do their jobs or not be actively malicious. To have a functioning society, we need some level of trust in each other.
Depending on the temperature differential and the efficiency of the heat pump. It gets too cold around here for standard heat pumps to be as efficient as burning stuff. There are places where geothermal energy is close enough to be useful in a heat pump, but not where my house is.
However, it's still cheaper to heat. I've got a portable heat pump in my dining room, primarily used to cool it (although we've used it to warm up when we had boiler problems). It takes a certain amount of power, which comes out as heat somewhere. If it's inside, it reduces the cooling efficiency and raises the heating efficiency slightly.
In which case you'd think a climate scientist would go through the papers and show the problems. Not all are ignorant of statistics, and it wouldn't take all that much money to check the statistics. It would be a way for a new climate scientist to make a big splash in the field.
So, going from your hypothesis, we can make reasonable predictions and find them to differ from observation. Scientifically, then, what you say is probably wrong.
First, there's some reason to believe we're in a very slow temperature decline due to natural causes, so the natural climate change won't necessarily take us in the same direction. Second, the problem is not so much that things are warming up as that things are warming up really fast. If the temperature change took place over several thousand years, it wouldn't be nearly as significant.as a change over a century.
It isn't an existential threat to the species. Homo sapiens is extremely adaptable (frequently by technological means) and has proven to be tough to eradicate.
Also, if I were to reduce my energy usage, nothing noticeable would happen. This is a "tragedy of the commons" situation, and we need collective action.
And then you proceed to show how an individual plan in Switzerland can be less expensive than a group plan in the US. A group is more statistically reliable than an individual, so group insurance is less risky.
Anywhere there's enough of the idiots to exert a lot of power, yes.
The same is true of all people who won't admit they might be wrong.
Another explanation is that you are not perceiving typical behavior, or interpreting what you're seeing properly. "Leftist" covers quite a lot of people, who don't necessarily agree with each other, and some are louder than others. The media of course shows what will grab eyeballs, so you can't rely on it to tell you what's really going on.
What is this "extraordinarily harsh punishment" you speak of? If you say something I don't like, I'm perfectly free to disagree with you and call you names.
Some movies just seem better to me with a larger audience, for whatever reason. This still isn't a good reason for finding a sparsely attended showing rather than watching it at home.
Or how will kids hone their BS detectors without all the test data commercials give us?
Which would not be representational for all the other mathematical uses of pi, a number that shows up a lot in places you might not expect, such as the normal distribution.
Not true; there are some, usually smaller companies (and not all of them). No corporation can be trusted to keep up its current policies, but the current policies might be human-friendly.
It's not a universal rule. My usual experiences with HR have been positive, and I've often found HR people to be likable. I have no idea whether my experiences or yours are more representative.
Corporate health plans are group insurance, so the insurance company knows it's dealing with a group of people not selected for bad health. With individual insurance, sick people will tend to buy high-coverage insurance and healthy people will tend to buy low-premium insurance or no insurance, so high-coverage plans wind up being really expensive and maybe unaffordable. It's called "adverse selection". The only way to have reasonably priced high-coverage insurance is to have some way to include both sick and healthy people. Some examples would be the employees of company X and their dependents, or the entire population. Individual plans can't be as inexpensive as group plans.
When MS-DOS was introduced (as PC-DOS), it was a decent OS. The IBM PC was a somewhat more powerful version of the PCs already around, typically based on Intel, Zilog, more Mostek CPUs. The memory limits were small because of the CPUs available. The 8088 could address 1M memory rather than 64K, although in a clunky manner (and MS-DOS only allowed the user 640K). Few people wanted to pay for more than 64K anyway when the IBM PC was introduced. There was no hardware memory protection, and little hardware support for multitasking. Doing these things in software would have been a burden on CPUs already not too fast.
MS-DOS may not have kept up with the times well, but its competitors didn't either.
I'm not an expert here, but I suspect there's a great deal of skill involved in a really good blowjob. They aren't all the same quality, although I've known guys who were happy just being able to ejaculate in a woman's mouth.
Not if it helps you understand things for the rest of your career. Formal education tends to cover principles that will come in handy later, stuff that on-the-job training doesn't provide. There are, of course, crap computer science programs.
Nope. Some things can be learned fast, some take years. If you're asking a smart person to write in a language with concepts he or she has seen before, it will be fast. If you're asking that person to get fluent in difficult concepts, it can take years.
If it's a small project, you're right. However, projects can get arbitrarily big until the people writing and maintaining them are at their limits. That's where the real benefits come in, and good code in them is much more difficult.
It was a lot easier to understand what went on. When I had Z80 computers, I knew what the CPU was doing and for how long. I knew how long it took to access a memory location.
Now that I have i5 computers, I don't know what the CPU is doing at any time, and I don't know how long it would take to access a memory location.
I have removed the Mythical Man-Month from my recommendations. There's chapters that are irrelevant because of some technical advances. There's stuff it gets wrong (for example, it comes out fully against information hiding and for tight coupling). There's a lot of stuff in there that has been absorbed into common wisdom. There's still good stuff that hasn't been assimilated, but picking it out is going to be difficult for people who don't know it already.