There are reasons for a 40-hour work week, and if your employer relies on people putting in 60-70 hours, they're idiots. Over the long term, 40 hours a week is about as much good work as you can get out of a software person, if that. Over the short term, if an employee has been pulling 70s for a while, there's no ability to make a big extra effort when needed.
I normally work about 40 hours (I don't keep exact track), and I get my stuff done. I understand the concept of crunch time, and am willing to cooperate. Everybody's happy.
My confusing syntax, I see. We all know she used her personal server, which was not managed well for security, for official business. That's verified. Whether she deleted official emails is, as far as I've seen, not verified.
Yeah, but I had to use it when it was brand new and crappy. Fortunately, I didn't get one of those dubious "ready for Vista" computers, but it still had serious problems.
However, the point is that perceived popularity of a Microsoft operating system has very little bearing on how good it is. There's a whole lot of them out there because systems are preloaded with W10, and most people don't change their OSes. Most people want to run some software that is Windows-only or Windows-or-Mac, and most of them don't want the Mac. (There are people with simpler needs, but they've largely moved to tablets.) If Microsoft produces a crappy OS, hundreds of millions of people are going to use it. Given the extreme measures Microsoft took to deceive W7 and W8 users to go to W10, massive "acceptance" was inevitable.
I'm not claiming anything. I've gotten real tired of all the Clinton hate, so I'm just challenging anti-Clinton claims that I don't see as verified (for example, using her own not-well-secured email server for official business).
How is she in violation of the FOIA? What official information was she asked for that she failed to provide without a valid reason not to? I read the Wikipedia article, and saw no signs that (a) it applied to personal email not on a government server, or (b) that it assumed guilty until proven innocent.
I don't see how she can be guilty of FOIA violation for information not under the control of the Federal Government. She could be guilty of other things (we can probably agree on bad judgment, although that isn't illegal), but until someone can come up with actual evidence of something worth prosecuting she's not going to be prosecuted.
The uranium mining deal was completely legit, and I suspect anyone who doesn't think so of being an irrational Clinton-hater. Nor does "AP yesterday" a citation make. I still haven't seen evidence.
Got any evidence that she was selling access? The stuff I've seen seems to say that donating money to the Clinton Foundation may have gotten you access to Bill, but not the State Department.
Why would her personal email cease to be personal? It wasn't on an official government server, after all, and she was only required to turn over the official stuff. Presumably, personal email on an official server would be retained, but that wasn't the case here. She did nothing Powell didn't do. I think you're making up that thing about violation of the law, probably from wishful thinking.
And, before Clinton faces trial for this, we really need to try a bunch of Bush administration people. They destroyed far more emails than Clinton did. Somehow, this doesn't seem to be talked about.
You do realize that the Clintons have interacted with a very large number of people, so being connected to a good number of people who have died isn't unusual. The reason why she and Bill have dodged what looks like scandals is that the scandals were mostly made up. (Besides, if she can disappear people without any traceable connection, we want her on our side, don't we?) The election is real. Sanders came in a pretty close second, and the Republicans didn't have to nominate Trump. Since Sanders didn't win, and the Republicans couldn't find a real candidate, Clinton will be elected.
The iPhone 4 had a defective antenna design, leading to a 100% failure rate without the rubber
Actually, no. It was a stupid antenna design, and a legitimate problem, but it wasn't nearly that bad. It varied by individual phone (I could manage to get a one-brick/dot degradation by licking my finger and putting it hard on the sensitive spot on mine), and even the first report I saw was a result of testing three phones and finding one with a problem. Then I saw a lot of media making it sound a lot worse than it was so they could orgasm on the clicks.
Apple Maps had problems with locating some things, just like Google Maps did. I remember circling an area looking for the supermarket Google swore was in an area and eventually finding that Google had just picked some sort of arbitrary location. If that location had been dangerous, and I'd been stupid enough to trust a phone app with my life, would Google then have killed me?
National Socialism was not a leftist plot. It was a right-wing development, as you'd know if you studied a little of the history. Try any history. You'll find that the NSDAP party did have socialist and nationalist wings, it came to power as part of the right wing, and the socialists were terminated with extreme prejudice shortly thereafter. I know this doesn't fit your convenient little narrative, but it's true.
The Sun was also significantly dimmer 200 megayears ago. Recreate those atmospheric conditions nowadays and it's going to be a lot warmer than it was then.
Science, as a whole, is capable of correcting itself. There are ways of dealing with scientists who take stands against the evidence, and it isn't happening, because the evidence supports climate science. Just because you're American, and have paid attention to Gore, doesn't mean the majority of climate scientists are.
Among scientists who don't have a vested interest in continued research grants that will only support news of an apocalypse (where do you even apply for such grants), there's the same consensus.
It may have stopped getting warmer? Sorry, the old intellectually fraudulent tactic of picking 1998 as your base doesn't work any more. Every month this year has been measured as the warmest on record. It's getting warmer, buddy, and shows no signs of stopping.
Since there's varied sources of funding all over the world, it will take more than one large pile of grant money to get consensus, and there's going to be enough climate scientists out there to blow the whistle if they find anything unscientific.
Yeah, parts of the planet have been warmer and cooler. If you'd like to show me evidence that the planet as a whole has been warmer than what we've got now, go ahead. I haven't seen it.
I don't know what you mean by CAGW, but I'm willing to bet that green-agenda.com does not represent the political objectives of any large group of scientists. I don't know that it's any more legit than the Protocols of Zion.
Okay, you don't like consensus. Got that. You don't trust things just because a consensus of scientists agree.
Now, where do you get your science? You can't possibly verify physics up through Newton's time by yourself. There's far too many things to do. You're going to have to take some of this stuff on some sort of faith. The neat thing about science is that you can check things. If you ask about Catholic theology, say, you'll find a very large number of things that you can't possibly verify. If you ask about science, you can pick any individual thing and verify it for yourself (it may take some time to learn how to do that, of course). If two theologians disagree, there's no method of picking who's right. If two scientists disagree, there's a method to resolve it. Science lives on consensus, but it has ways to break up false consensuses and allow effective dissent.
You also have a lot of strange views. You can find papers on the satellite observations. You can find papers on the comparisons of projections to reality. It's all out there. It's not hidden. You also seem to think that almost all climate scientists completely disregard the truth, and have a certain political agenda that doesn't vary worldwide. Have you ever thought about what things would have to be true for that to be true?
There are global warming scammers, but that doesn't affect the fact that we're heating up the surface of the planet and it's going to have some unpleasant consequences. Check out the IPCC reports.
You seem to assume that almost all scientists are supported by governments that are willing to trash science for political purposes, and all in the same way. We're talking about scientists all over. If the data had been totally blown, there'd be enough climate scientists here and there to show that.
And, yes, the scientific predictions have typically been off on the conservative side. I don't find that comforting.
The US has never had an anti-war party. It's had parties that were against particular wars. It's had parties that were more or less likely to get into a war, but never an anti-war major party. Your "no longer" suggests that you have some idealistic version of the past.
Fracking, if done right, is a good thing. It allows us to burn natural gas instead of coal, which means less CO2 per joule of electricity produced. It can do some nasty things if done wrong, of course.
Are you a parent? As a parent, the idea of living it up and leaving a bigger problem for my son to endure is really not attractive. I want my son's life to be better than mine, not worse.
I really don't care about how the Earth was way long ago. That's not what I evolved in, and that's not what civilization developed in. Climate change will have some positive effects, and it won't wipe out humanity. However, it will have a lot of negative effects, and it's going to be disruptive in very many ways. It's going to hurt a LOT of people, and that's something I do care about.
Slashdot Mirror
There are reasons for a 40-hour work week, and if your employer relies on people putting in 60-70 hours, they're idiots. Over the long term, 40 hours a week is about as much good work as you can get out of a software person, if that. Over the short term, if an employee has been pulling 70s for a while, there's no ability to make a big extra effort when needed.
I normally work about 40 hours (I don't keep exact track), and I get my stuff done. I understand the concept of crunch time, and am willing to cooperate. Everybody's happy.
My confusing syntax, I see. We all know she used her personal server, which was not managed well for security, for official business. That's verified. Whether she deleted official emails is, as far as I've seen, not verified.
Yeah, but I had to use it when it was brand new and crappy. Fortunately, I didn't get one of those dubious "ready for Vista" computers, but it still had serious problems.
However, the point is that perceived popularity of a Microsoft operating system has very little bearing on how good it is. There's a whole lot of them out there because systems are preloaded with W10, and most people don't change their OSes. Most people want to run some software that is Windows-only or Windows-or-Mac, and most of them don't want the Mac. (There are people with simpler needs, but they've largely moved to tablets.) If Microsoft produces a crappy OS, hundreds of millions of people are going to use it. Given the extreme measures Microsoft took to deceive W7 and W8 users to go to W10, massive "acceptance" was inevitable.
I'm not claiming anything. I've gotten real tired of all the Clinton hate, so I'm just challenging anti-Clinton claims that I don't see as verified (for example, using her own not-well-secured email server for official business).
How is she in violation of the FOIA? What official information was she asked for that she failed to provide without a valid reason not to? I read the Wikipedia article, and saw no signs that (a) it applied to personal email not on a government server, or (b) that it assumed guilty until proven innocent.
I don't see how she can be guilty of FOIA violation for information not under the control of the Federal Government. She could be guilty of other things (we can probably agree on bad judgment, although that isn't illegal), but until someone can come up with actual evidence of something worth prosecuting she's not going to be prosecuted.
The uranium mining deal was completely legit, and I suspect anyone who doesn't think so of being an irrational Clinton-hater. Nor does "AP yesterday" a citation make. I still haven't seen evidence.
Got any evidence that she was selling access? The stuff I've seen seems to say that donating money to the Clinton Foundation may have gotten you access to Bill, but not the State Department.
Why would her personal email cease to be personal? It wasn't on an official government server, after all, and she was only required to turn over the official stuff. Presumably, personal email on an official server would be retained, but that wasn't the case here. She did nothing Powell didn't do. I think you're making up that thing about violation of the law, probably from wishful thinking.
And, before Clinton faces trial for this, we really need to try a bunch of Bush administration people. They destroyed far more emails than Clinton did. Somehow, this doesn't seem to be talked about.
You do realize that the Clintons have interacted with a very large number of people, so being connected to a good number of people who have died isn't unusual. The reason why she and Bill have dodged what looks like scandals is that the scandals were mostly made up. (Besides, if she can disappear people without any traceable connection, we want her on our side, don't we?) The election is real. Sanders came in a pretty close second, and the Republicans didn't have to nominate Trump. Since Sanders didn't win, and the Republicans couldn't find a real candidate, Clinton will be elected.
I give it a 2/10. Your propaganda really needs to have some plausibility.
Actually, no. It was a stupid antenna design, and a legitimate problem, but it wasn't nearly that bad. It varied by individual phone (I could manage to get a one-brick/dot degradation by licking my finger and putting it hard on the sensitive spot on mine), and even the first report I saw was a result of testing three phones and finding one with a problem. Then I saw a lot of media making it sound a lot worse than it was so they could orgasm on the clicks.
Apple Maps had problems with locating some things, just like Google Maps did. I remember circling an area looking for the supermarket Google swore was in an area and eventually finding that Google had just picked some sort of arbitrary location. If that location had been dangerous, and I'd been stupid enough to trust a phone app with my life, would Google then have killed me?
Fine in the way that Vista did? Me? "Fine": I do not think that word means what you think it means.
No. One purpose behind the consultations is that it gives the lawyer a chance to see if there is a case, and if so to offer to represent.
National Socialism was not a leftist plot. It was a right-wing development, as you'd know if you studied a little of the history. Try any history. You'll find that the NSDAP party did have socialist and nationalist wings, it came to power as part of the right wing, and the socialists were terminated with extreme prejudice shortly thereafter. I know this doesn't fit your convenient little narrative, but it's true.
The Sun was also significantly dimmer 200 megayears ago. Recreate those atmospheric conditions nowadays and it's going to be a lot warmer than it was then.
Who is this Tim Flannery, and why should I care? Lots of people make extreme predictions. That doesn't mean everything's just peachy.
Science, as a whole, is capable of correcting itself. There are ways of dealing with scientists who take stands against the evidence, and it isn't happening, because the evidence supports climate science. Just because you're American, and have paid attention to Gore, doesn't mean the majority of climate scientists are.
Among scientists who don't have a vested interest in continued research grants that will only support news of an apocalypse (where do you even apply for such grants), there's the same consensus.
It may have stopped getting warmer? Sorry, the old intellectually fraudulent tactic of picking 1998 as your base doesn't work any more. Every month this year has been measured as the warmest on record. It's getting warmer, buddy, and shows no signs of stopping.
Since there's varied sources of funding all over the world, it will take more than one large pile of grant money to get consensus, and there's going to be enough climate scientists out there to blow the whistle if they find anything unscientific.
Yeah, parts of the planet have been warmer and cooler. If you'd like to show me evidence that the planet as a whole has been warmer than what we've got now, go ahead. I haven't seen it.
I don't know what you mean by CAGW, but I'm willing to bet that green-agenda.com does not represent the political objectives of any large group of scientists. I don't know that it's any more legit than the Protocols of Zion.
Okay, you don't like consensus. Got that. You don't trust things just because a consensus of scientists agree.
Now, where do you get your science? You can't possibly verify physics up through Newton's time by yourself. There's far too many things to do. You're going to have to take some of this stuff on some sort of faith. The neat thing about science is that you can check things. If you ask about Catholic theology, say, you'll find a very large number of things that you can't possibly verify. If you ask about science, you can pick any individual thing and verify it for yourself (it may take some time to learn how to do that, of course). If two theologians disagree, there's no method of picking who's right. If two scientists disagree, there's a method to resolve it. Science lives on consensus, but it has ways to break up false consensuses and allow effective dissent.
You also have a lot of strange views. You can find papers on the satellite observations. You can find papers on the comparisons of projections to reality. It's all out there. It's not hidden. You also seem to think that almost all climate scientists completely disregard the truth, and have a certain political agenda that doesn't vary worldwide. Have you ever thought about what things would have to be true for that to be true?
There are global warming scammers, but that doesn't affect the fact that we're heating up the surface of the planet and it's going to have some unpleasant consequences. Check out the IPCC reports.
You seem to assume that almost all scientists are supported by governments that are willing to trash science for political purposes, and all in the same way. We're talking about scientists all over. If the data had been totally blown, there'd be enough climate scientists here and there to show that.
And, yes, the scientific predictions have typically been off on the conservative side. I don't find that comforting.
The US has never had an anti-war party. It's had parties that were against particular wars. It's had parties that were more or less likely to get into a war, but never an anti-war major party. Your "no longer" suggests that you have some idealistic version of the past.
Fracking, if done right, is a good thing. It allows us to burn natural gas instead of coal, which means less CO2 per joule of electricity produced. It can do some nasty things if done wrong, of course.
Are you a parent? As a parent, the idea of living it up and leaving a bigger problem for my son to endure is really not attractive. I want my son's life to be better than mine, not worse.
I really don't care about how the Earth was way long ago. That's not what I evolved in, and that's not what civilization developed in. Climate change will have some positive effects, and it won't wipe out humanity. However, it will have a lot of negative effects, and it's going to be disruptive in very many ways. It's going to hurt a LOT of people, and that's something I do care about.