The main rodent threat is that the evil creatures are suicide short-circuiters, getting into our transformers and infringing on our personal liberties. Chewing through things is less common and less destructive.
I was doing testing when the local power company introduced a new system for outage and crew management. The first field report entering the system listed an outage as caused by a "fried tree rat".
By denying social pressures as a confounding issue, you're assuming that we've got the nature-nurture thing exactly right, and I don't believe that. Everybody's free to make their own choices. As an extreme, when a robber sticks a gun in your face and demands your wallet, you're free to insult his or her mother. It may not be a good choice, but it's a free one. As a lesser extreme, a person who is deliberately made uncomfortable in certain classes is likely not to take them. Is that a free choice?
We're commenting on a story in which Oracle is suspected of breaking the law by practicing identity politics in employment matters. Paying someone more because that person resembles you in some way, rather than because that person creates certain value and will cost a certain amount to replace, is identity politics.
I started not liking Trump, sure, but I've seen nothing to change my mind. Trump is an incredibly prolific liar, and people who support him are apparently OK with supporting someone who lies all the time about things easily verified (an obvious recent example being the number of people who appeared for Trump's inauguration). The CIA is considerably more reliable than Trump.
Show me one fact I've got wrong. The server was legal (which does not apply that all uses were), and people who negligently mishandled classified information have not been criminally prosecuted.
There is no social pressure taking women out of STEM degrees
Sez you. Proof by blatant assertion. You don't even seem to think you might be wrong when making a blanket statement about the culture of a large country.
There are women who have been made uncomfortable in STEM classes, or told not to take them, or just faced a lack or cooperation. There are people (me included) who didn't sign up for the career the paper-and-pencil tests (that were made by people making various assumptions) said we were best for.
It used to be fairly common in some companies in the 1950s for employees to ask for, and get, raises when they got married and had children.
You admit that having children is necessary for society and your well-being. You then expect others to raise children at their own expense. Do you really believe that you should be able to count on strangers spending effort and money for your own well-being?
Lawyers are useful. They can provide advice for people accused of crimes. They can help people through complicated legal situations. They can help stop those situations from coming up.
If a couple of people write up a contract about anything complicated, there's lots of room for vagueness. A lawyer can help write that contract so each party knows what the contract says and means, and if that's done right there's no reason to take the contract to court.
I think the problem with the litigious society is not so much lawyers, although there are problem lawyers, but people seem sue-happy. When I slipped on an improperly maintained sidewalk and hurt myself, there were people who weren't lawyers telling me to sue. (It really wasn't that big a deal. I wrote a letter to the people who were responsible for the sidewalk and told them to do better in the future.) The lawyers I've had the most contact with generally try to avoid lawsuits.
No, but it looked like a combat situation to the people in the helicopter. In a combat zone, show a helicopter crew something that looks like an enemy weapon capable of taking down helicopters, and they're going to shoot. If you're in the middle of a goddam war, you take that into account in your daily activities unless you're stupid and/or suicidal. Work and school become secondary to surviving the combat. War is hell.
1. Good colleges and universities are unlikely to want to give people what they see as a substandard education, and it isn't clear to me that it would save much money in STEM fields. My son's classes were mostly STEM.
2. Employers are likely to have their own criteria. Unfortunately, when the company gets big enough that it attracts too many applications to handle, it's real easy to take large categories of less promising applications and throw them out. If the employer thinks a college degree is likely to have some slight help, round-filing the applications without degrees is awful tempting. Remember, employers have no obligation to be fair to applicants (except in certain specific ways - no discrimination on grounds of race, religion, etc.), their obligations are to their own efficient operations.
3. I so want someone to come along and find out how colleges and universities are spending their money and why. Inflation-adjusted, my son's college degree was about four times as expensive as mine, and it didn't take four times the resources. I really want to know where the money is going. I know there's reduced state aid, but that comes nowhere near explaining it. I strongly suspect my local university is spending a lot of money that students and faculty get no benefit from.
I was wondering about that, and I watched the Avengers movie in 2D and 3D. After doing that, I couldn't remember any differences between the experiences.
It's possible to impose a revenue-neutral carbon tax, by reducing other taxes. (I'd recommend reducing the taxes that affect the poor, since they'll be hardest hit by a carbon tax.) A revenue-neutral carbon tax would leave just as much money available for investment, and would make investment in renewable energy more profitable.
Nobody's shown me that the journalist shootings were a crime. Combat zones are dangerous places, and if you hang around with people who might be classified as active hostiles you've got a chance of being shot.
believe that the US government cares sufficiently - or indeeed at all - about what's said on Slashdot
In the comments of the articles about the Russian anschluss of the Crimea and the shooting down of the airliner by a Russian missile, there sure seemed to be Russian shills active. It surprised me. So, stranger things have happened.
This is how I think things went. Assange moved to Sweden, not fearing extraordinary rendition to the US. He got sexually involved with a couple of women. I don't know exactly what he did, although I've read statements. The women's statements do show that rape charges may well be in order. There follows some things that I've only heard from sources I don't entirely trust, and who in some cases are clearly as ignorant as I am of Swedish law. Assange goes to the UK, which is a really dumb thing to do if you're afraid of being extradited to the US. Sweden files an extradition request, and Assange appeals against it. The UK court system systematically goes through it, and decides that the alleged acts do constitute a serious crime under UK law, and that the evidence supporting the allegation is reasonable. The UK agreed to send Assange back to Sweden to stand trial.
At this point, Assange fled, since he didn't want to face trial in Sweden. He took refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy, and claimed that he was afraid of being sent to the US.in order to avoid saying that he didn't want to go to Sweden for his trial, despite having no evidence that the US wanted him.
This explains the facts I've seen on the case nicely. It doesn't rely on speculation on what governments might be doing. It explains why Assange might go to Sweden in the first place, despite later claims that he fears Sweden will cooperate in turning him over to the US. It's an easy, simple answer that paints Assange as the closest thing to a bad guy the story has.
I'm not a government operative, although until more than twenty-five years ago I worked for a county government. If you want me to pay attention to you, address my reasoning. Don't pull an ad hominem. ("You're stupid so your argument's wrong" is an ad hominem. "Your argument is stupid so you must be too" is not. Just to clarify.)
Whether Assange turns himself over to the US also depends on whether we want him. I'm sure the US doesn't actually want him. We'd probably do what he fears worst and turn him over to face charges in Sweden.
As far as I can tell, he wants to avoid being handed over to Sweden because he doesn't want to face the Swedish courts calling him to account on what he did. If he feared US extradition, he would never have gone to the UK. If he feared extraordinary rendition from Sweden, he would never have gone there in the first place.
I'm positive that, had Assange done nothing, Manning's sentence would have been commuted. Obama doesn't take orders from Assange's grandstanding, and his offer to accept extradition to the US is null unless and until the US files an extradition request.
I see no good reason to think the US wants him for anything. If we were going to do anything, we would have back when he was halfway relevant. Ideally, he'd go to Sweden and face a Swedish court. It looks to me like he's blaming everyone he can, including the US, because he fears justice.
He's a fugitive from justice, not just a defendant in a rape case. He also made this political by hiding in an embassy without being a victim of political prosecution. It's also a high profile case. He's worth more effort than the average criminal.
Nobody's allowed to look inside a diplomatic pouch. That doesn't mean a country has to allow foreign diplomats to designate something as a diplomatic pouch and do anything out of the ordinary with it.
Slashdot Mirror
The main rodent threat is that the evil creatures are suicide short-circuiters, getting into our transformers and infringing on our personal liberties. Chewing through things is less common and less destructive.
They weren't even the deadliest bombing raids in history. A March 1945 incendiary raid on Tokyo killed more people than either nuke.
I was doing testing when the local power company introduced a new system for outage and crew management. The first field report entering the system listed an outage as caused by a "fried tree rat".
By denying social pressures as a confounding issue, you're assuming that we've got the nature-nurture thing exactly right, and I don't believe that. Everybody's free to make their own choices. As an extreme, when a robber sticks a gun in your face and demands your wallet, you're free to insult his or her mother. It may not be a good choice, but it's a free one. As a lesser extreme, a person who is deliberately made uncomfortable in certain classes is likely not to take them. Is that a free choice?
We're commenting on a story in which Oracle is suspected of breaking the law by practicing identity politics in employment matters. Paying someone more because that person resembles you in some way, rather than because that person creates certain value and will cost a certain amount to replace, is identity politics.
I started not liking Trump, sure, but I've seen nothing to change my mind. Trump is an incredibly prolific liar, and people who support him are apparently OK with supporting someone who lies all the time about things easily verified (an obvious recent example being the number of people who appeared for Trump's inauguration). The CIA is considerably more reliable than Trump.
Show me one fact I've got wrong. The server was legal (which does not apply that all uses were), and people who negligently mishandled classified information have not been criminally prosecuted.
Please provide these known, public, and established facts that I have completely failed to see, or at least one of them.
Sez you. Proof by blatant assertion. You don't even seem to think you might be wrong when making a blanket statement about the culture of a large country.
There are women who have been made uncomfortable in STEM classes, or told not to take them, or just faced a lack or cooperation. There are people (me included) who didn't sign up for the career the paper-and-pencil tests (that were made by people making various assumptions) said we were best for.
It used to be fairly common in some companies in the 1950s for employees to ask for, and get, raises when they got married and had children.
You admit that having children is necessary for society and your well-being. You then expect others to raise children at their own expense. Do you really believe that you should be able to count on strangers spending effort and money for your own well-being?
Lawyers are useful. They can provide advice for people accused of crimes. They can help people through complicated legal situations. They can help stop those situations from coming up.
If a couple of people write up a contract about anything complicated, there's lots of room for vagueness. A lawyer can help write that contract so each party knows what the contract says and means, and if that's done right there's no reason to take the contract to court.
I think the problem with the litigious society is not so much lawyers, although there are problem lawyers, but people seem sue-happy. When I slipped on an improperly maintained sidewalk and hurt myself, there were people who weren't lawyers telling me to sue. (It really wasn't that big a deal. I wrote a letter to the people who were responsible for the sidewalk and told them to do better in the future.) The lawyers I've had the most contact with generally try to avoid lawsuits.
No, but it looked like a combat situation to the people in the helicopter. In a combat zone, show a helicopter crew something that looks like an enemy weapon capable of taking down helicopters, and they're going to shoot. If you're in the middle of a goddam war, you take that into account in your daily activities unless you're stupid and/or suicidal. Work and school become secondary to surviving the combat. War is hell.
1. Good colleges and universities are unlikely to want to give people what they see as a substandard education, and it isn't clear to me that it would save much money in STEM fields. My son's classes were mostly STEM.
2. Employers are likely to have their own criteria. Unfortunately, when the company gets big enough that it attracts too many applications to handle, it's real easy to take large categories of less promising applications and throw them out. If the employer thinks a college degree is likely to have some slight help, round-filing the applications without degrees is awful tempting. Remember, employers have no obligation to be fair to applicants (except in certain specific ways - no discrimination on grounds of race, religion, etc.), their obligations are to their own efficient operations.
3. I so want someone to come along and find out how colleges and universities are spending their money and why. Inflation-adjusted, my son's college degree was about four times as expensive as mine, and it didn't take four times the resources. I really want to know where the money is going. I know there's reduced state aid, but that comes nowhere near explaining it. I strongly suspect my local university is spending a lot of money that students and faculty get no benefit from.
I was wondering about that, and I watched the Avengers movie in 2D and 3D. After doing that, I couldn't remember any differences between the experiences.
It's possible to impose a revenue-neutral carbon tax, by reducing other taxes. (I'd recommend reducing the taxes that affect the poor, since they'll be hardest hit by a carbon tax.) A revenue-neutral carbon tax would leave just as much money available for investment, and would make investment in renewable energy more profitable.
Nobody's shown me that the journalist shootings were a crime. Combat zones are dangerous places, and if you hang around with people who might be classified as active hostiles you've got a chance of being shot.
In the comments of the articles about the Russian anschluss of the Crimea and the shooting down of the airliner by a Russian missile, there sure seemed to be Russian shills active. It surprised me. So, stranger things have happened.
Speaking as one who tries to be rational....
This is how I think things went. Assange moved to Sweden, not fearing extraordinary rendition to the US. He got sexually involved with a couple of women. I don't know exactly what he did, although I've read statements. The women's statements do show that rape charges may well be in order. There follows some things that I've only heard from sources I don't entirely trust, and who in some cases are clearly as ignorant as I am of Swedish law. Assange goes to the UK, which is a really dumb thing to do if you're afraid of being extradited to the US. Sweden files an extradition request, and Assange appeals against it. The UK court system systematically goes through it, and decides that the alleged acts do constitute a serious crime under UK law, and that the evidence supporting the allegation is reasonable. The UK agreed to send Assange back to Sweden to stand trial.
At this point, Assange fled, since he didn't want to face trial in Sweden. He took refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy, and claimed that he was afraid of being sent to the US.in order to avoid saying that he didn't want to go to Sweden for his trial, despite having no evidence that the US wanted him.
This explains the facts I've seen on the case nicely. It doesn't rely on speculation on what governments might be doing. It explains why Assange might go to Sweden in the first place, despite later claims that he fears Sweden will cooperate in turning him over to the US. It's an easy, simple answer that paints Assange as the closest thing to a bad guy the story has.
I'm not a government operative, although until more than twenty-five years ago I worked for a county government. If you want me to pay attention to you, address my reasoning. Don't pull an ad hominem. ("You're stupid so your argument's wrong" is an ad hominem. "Your argument is stupid so you must be too" is not. Just to clarify.)
Pardons have often been given when it was clear a person was wrongly convicted of a crime, and everybody understood that.
Whether Assange turns himself over to the US also depends on whether we want him. I'm sure the US doesn't actually want him. We'd probably do what he fears worst and turn him over to face charges in Sweden.
As far as I can tell, he wants to avoid being handed over to Sweden because he doesn't want to face the Swedish courts calling him to account on what he did. If he feared US extradition, he would never have gone to the UK. If he feared extraordinary rendition from Sweden, he would never have gone there in the first place.
I'm positive that, had Assange done nothing, Manning's sentence would have been commuted. Obama doesn't take orders from Assange's grandstanding, and his offer to accept extradition to the US is null unless and until the US files an extradition request.
I see no good reason to think the US wants him for anything. If we were going to do anything, we would have back when he was halfway relevant. Ideally, he'd go to Sweden and face a Swedish court. It looks to me like he's blaming everyone he can, including the US, because he fears justice.
He's a fugitive from justice, not just a defendant in a rape case. He also made this political by hiding in an embassy without being a victim of political prosecution. It's also a high profile case. He's worth more effort than the average criminal.
Nobody's allowed to look inside a diplomatic pouch. That doesn't mean a country has to allow foreign diplomats to designate something as a diplomatic pouch and do anything out of the ordinary with it.
Yes, consider it. Don't assume it. Soldiers of all countries did some pretty horrible things.