Abolishing due process? I see that a lot with "law and order" types.
Limiting free speech? People all over the political spectrum want to limit it. They just differ in what speech to limit.
Overt retaliatory discrimination? You mean like pretending Christians are persecuted in this country, and trying to make them more equal than other religions?
There's idiots all over the political spectrum, but you only seem to see one kind. I wonder why.
I saw, on live TV, two rockets coming into the picture, vertical, engines braking the fall, coming down and landing on Earth. It was spectacular. It was the sort of thing that the Golden Age writers and fans who died before yesterday wrote and read about and never got to see.
The LEM did land on the Moon, and took off again, but it was obviously a special-purpose lander not intended to be reused. Those boosters are regular boosters that had already been used once and could be used again.
I just looked at the moderation on this. Currently, it got +1, Interesting and -2, Overrated. I take it that Slashdotters don't want to talk about this.
Aside from sexual assault (much more likely to be man-on-woman than the reverse), the man and the woman hold equal power. both need to agree to have sex. If you're saying that women have more power because men always want sex, you're stereotyping and claiming that men are usually irresponsible. You're giving up on men and putting responsibility for their actions on women.
Lots of people of both sexes are firmly against abortion. I'm not, but many are, so abortion is out of the question. The only 100% sure form of contraception is abstinence, and that's just as much a man thing as a woman thing.
The man is, under no circumstances, forced to be pregnant. Pregnancy is pretty dangerous as far as conditions go nowadays. There's a lot that can go wrong, and not all of that is fixable after birth. It does semi-incapacitate woman for months. It can cause really weird mood swings. The man can walk away with only a financial obligation, and many try to get out of that. This is not a symmetric situation.
I'm asking questions I don't know the answers to. I don't know what, fundamentally, is going on.
I do know that a lot of people want to see investigations until the investigation comes up with one that satisfies their prejudices, and then take that as the correct answer. Some people note the pay gap and consider that wrong. Some people look at more investigations that come up with reasons behind the pay gap, and conclude that, since there are reasons, there's nothing to worry about. I'm asking what happens if we go further, if we explore why these reasons exist for men and women. That's one thing Damore tried to do at Google. I like some of the questions he was bringing up.
We could also discuss equality of opportunity. Women are more vulnerable to physical attack than men, on the whole, and that isn't equality. Should we do something about that?
Or the reasons for the reasons. Pay and promotions seem to be based on things more typically male. If we looked at contributions differently, could we come up with a different perspective?
I'm not offering up answers here. I just want to see questions out there.
I've seen plenty of people who refer to Chelsea Manning as "him".
Gender dysphoria is a mismatch between body and brain. Currently, we can alter the body a lot easier than we can alter the brain. The most successful treatment appears to be gender reassignment. If you're going to try to deny effective treatment for people with what you consider a mental illness, we are not friends.
Apparently not, given the number of people here who don't believe in gender dysphoria. That would require acknowledging that there are more than the obvious physical differences between men and women.
The next step is to investigate those personal choices. Why are women not taking the more profitable shifts? Why are they dropping out as drivers more than men? Why are we rewarding people for speeding? This just kicks the can a way down the road, rather than explaining everything.
Last I checked, all the people born that I know about had two parents, one male and one female. This suggests that it isn't just the woman who's making that choice.
Sure I remember it. It really wasn't all that popular, because it was so friggin' expensive, and there was no follow-up. I'm not actually sure NASA could get people back to the moon in ten years, although it's obviously technically possible. The neat thing about private rockets is that there's competition, and they're freer to try things and buy parts from the best supplier, not the one in Senator Fubar's state.
Looks like pretty much the shuttle and Space-X launchers for now, unless you;re going to count the Buran. Since Space-X has shown the way, other people are following.
The shuttle dropped its solid fuel boosters in the water, and they were pretty much rebuilt. The orbiter glided to a landing. The whole system was really expensive for launching stuff.
The Falcon Heavy landed the two boosters on land, coming down on their tails, exactly like rockets were depicted when I was young. The core, apparently, was not recovered. Nevertheless, it's inexpensive as launchers go.
Moreover, the shuttle was an expensive dead end (the Buran more of a dead end). Consider steam warships: the first one was the USS Demogorgon, and nothing developed from it. The British later built steam warships and those sparked a design revolution.
Well, yes, in the exact same way that the iPhone wasn't innovative, except less so. Technologically, it's far advanced beyond the Saturn V, and it's a whole lot cheaper. It's going to transform the LEO market, and that will have lots of effects.
There's a difference between saying "We're the richest country on the planet, so we're going to build a few really big launches for really high-profile missions" and "We're a private company, and we're going to offer launch capacity better than anything since the Saturn relatively inexpensively".
Unless I'm mistaken, nobody but NASA has built something with that amount of payload weight, and nobody else has reasonably reliable booster recovery. (Looks like two out of three for this.)
And I'll assure you that modern C++ is a much better language for most things than FORTRAN IV, having experience with both.
If a shop is using VB6, Haskell, and Perl, they've got people and software in those languages, and writing some new software in Forth is going to need the shop to develop new skills and support new software. Typically the overall structure is a lot harder to change than the structure of a single program or group of programs.
If we needed some utility, and someone said "Here's the version that works great on Linux and BSD", and it had to fit in with the rest of the software we've got, we couldn't use it. It would be far less work to port it to MS Windows and compensate for Windows' inefficiencies than to change everything else to work with Linux or BSD.
Most projects are not done by people just hired who come in and develop them from scratch, without regard to existing software. Most projects need to be supported by people who are already there, and don't actually know Snobol, and need to work on the systems they already have.
Does someone want to tell this particular leftist what "post-modernist" actually means? I know that 'progressive" has turned into an insult among right-wingers, although you'd think progress would generally be a good thing. (Current Western civilization is the best ever, in many ways.)
One thing you need to understand is that people with all sorts of politics can be patriots. Their ideas as to what's good for the country may differ wildly, and their ideas about how to get there will differ more, but the country was founded partly on freedom of expression and encouraging diverse ideas.
I'm more concerned with the small but currently vocal right-wingers who want to drag us into fascism, right now. They're being more successful at this time.
Microsoft has a monopoly in enterprise desktop computing. It isn't a 100% market share, but it's enough.. The biggest changes in making money were due to the development of the tablet, and the fact that systems are satisfactory for a lot longer than they were in the 90s. Making an inferior product in their main area doesn't hurt them much, if at all. (Making an inferior product when they're trying to move into an area is different, as seen from the Surface write-off.) A monopoly is judges as one by how it works, not the market share (although you're not going to get a monopoly without a large market share).
Deregulating the production of power was likely a good thing, although some of the deregulation changes haven't been good. The last-mile distribution network is a natural monopoly, so it's regulated. There is, as you point out, competition for supplying power at a given point, but not in running wires to everywhere.
I haven't looked. Are there actual regulations giving the electric company a monopoly, or is it just correctly assumed that nobody else is going to come in? Cable companies no longer have guaranteed monopoly status, which doesn't stop them from being monopolies.
This was a critical job, and according to the stories I've read the employee wasn't up to it, and that the employee had screwed up more than once before. The employee might have done better elsewhere, perhaps with a less critical job. The person who made the decision to put a known risk in such a critical post is partly responsible for this. "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." - Montgomery Scott, chief engineer, Enterprise.
It is reasonable to fire an employee for incompetence, but it's also reasonable (and frequently cheaper) to see if there's other jobs the employee is better suited for. In cases where it's particularly hard to fire people, shuffling them off can be the best option. I also don't know how or why the employee screwed up before. If it's due to some sort of disability, the employer is required to try to figure out how to use the employee, and that often means moving the employee to a new job.
As far as firing the supervisor, this wasn't a case of a supervisor picking an employee and having a screw-up, from what I've read. If the employer has been unable to function in his duties on several occasions, that's more serious. One bad decision should not in general be a firing offense, but a pattern can be.
If we're doing this rigidly, then you're saying that reciting the official warning should cause the operator to issue the test alert. There have to be differences.
According to the operator's account, the announcement was put on speakerphone after the first "exercise exercise exercise" and cut off before the last. I don't know if it's true, but it's plausible. There was some confusion in the room, as it was shift change (and I'm not faulting having a practice during shift change). Counting on the words before and after the script to show it's a drill is dangerous.
The checklist can indeed be "call operator, read script...". The drill can contain a somewhat modified script.
Banking requires talent. Being a teller doesn't require much talent, but when you get higher up it's demanding. You seem to grossly underestimate the skill needed in activities you haven't bothered to understand.
I picked skydiving because my brother did it for a while. He quit when he broke his back, after making a mistake, and had to tell Mom he'd been skydiving. (She worried.) Yes, it requires skill, but so does banking.
Yeah, the Romans tended to be pragmatic bastards, and imported more theoretical stuff from the Greeks.
Democracy doesn't preclude imperialism and exploitation of colonies, as France demonstrated. (US and British colonies tended to be a lot better off than those of other countries, although that was a pretty low bar.) While Athens was a democracy, the Delian League was not.
The Third Reich arose from a representative democracy a lot faster the Roman Empire did, and we don't blame WWII and the Holocaust on the Weimar Republic. Democracies can be shaky, but many of the current ones seem well-established. No other form of government is more stable, as far as I can see. Monarchies may be, but monarchies can change, and many democracies nowadays are monarchies, with the monarch having limited power.
The Eastern Roman Empire was active for some time, and for a while controlled much of Italy. It did call for Western help, and got the First Crusade. After the Fourth Crusade, in which the crusaders sacked Constantinople rather than fight Muslims, the Emperors were probably less inclined to ask. It did hang on by its fingernails for a long time near the end, and at that time wasn't impressive.
You gave four cites. I found nothing suggesting that regulation caused the Great Recession in any of them, although I didn't read them all thoroughly. Indeed, they suggest that the Great Recession was due partly to deregulation, and that free enterprise can go wild in a dangerous way when not regulated.
So, I haven't seen evidence of democracy causing problems. Indeed, we've had democracies that have lasted for centuries. While overregulation can cause problems, so can deregulation.
Slashdot Mirror
Abolishing due process? I see that a lot with "law and order" types.
Limiting free speech? People all over the political spectrum want to limit it. They just differ in what speech to limit.
Overt retaliatory discrimination? You mean like pretending Christians are persecuted in this country, and trying to make them more equal than other religions?
There's idiots all over the political spectrum, but you only seem to see one kind. I wonder why.
I saw, on live TV, two rockets coming into the picture, vertical, engines braking the fall, coming down and landing on Earth. It was spectacular. It was the sort of thing that the Golden Age writers and fans who died before yesterday wrote and read about and never got to see.
The LEM did land on the Moon, and took off again, but it was obviously a special-purpose lander not intended to be reused. Those boosters are regular boosters that had already been used once and could be used again.
I just looked at the moderation on this. Currently, it got +1, Interesting and -2, Overrated. I take it that Slashdotters don't want to talk about this.
Aside from sexual assault (much more likely to be man-on-woman than the reverse), the man and the woman hold equal power. both need to agree to have sex. If you're saying that women have more power because men always want sex, you're stereotyping and claiming that men are usually irresponsible. You're giving up on men and putting responsibility for their actions on women.
Lots of people of both sexes are firmly against abortion. I'm not, but many are, so abortion is out of the question. The only 100% sure form of contraception is abstinence, and that's just as much a man thing as a woman thing.
The man is, under no circumstances, forced to be pregnant. Pregnancy is pretty dangerous as far as conditions go nowadays. There's a lot that can go wrong, and not all of that is fixable after birth. It does semi-incapacitate woman for months. It can cause really weird mood swings. The man can walk away with only a financial obligation, and many try to get out of that. This is not a symmetric situation.
Finally, your psychoanalysis sucks.
And I've known a guy or two who controlled his wife like that. It goes both ways.
Rats. I forgot about the one who has two mothers (one genetic and one gestational) and a sperm donor. Sorry.
I'm asking questions I don't know the answers to. I don't know what, fundamentally, is going on.
I do know that a lot of people want to see investigations until the investigation comes up with one that satisfies their prejudices, and then take that as the correct answer. Some people note the pay gap and consider that wrong. Some people look at more investigations that come up with reasons behind the pay gap, and conclude that, since there are reasons, there's nothing to worry about. I'm asking what happens if we go further, if we explore why these reasons exist for men and women. That's one thing Damore tried to do at Google. I like some of the questions he was bringing up.
We could also discuss equality of opportunity. Women are more vulnerable to physical attack than men, on the whole, and that isn't equality. Should we do something about that?
Or the reasons for the reasons. Pay and promotions seem to be based on things more typically male. If we looked at contributions differently, could we come up with a different perspective?
I'm not offering up answers here. I just want to see questions out there.
I've seen plenty of people who refer to Chelsea Manning as "him".
Gender dysphoria is a mismatch between body and brain. Currently, we can alter the body a lot easier than we can alter the brain. The most successful treatment appears to be gender reassignment. If you're going to try to deny effective treatment for people with what you consider a mental illness, we are not friends.
Apparently not, given the number of people here who don't believe in gender dysphoria. That would require acknowledging that there are more than the obvious physical differences between men and women.
The next step is to investigate those personal choices. Why are women not taking the more profitable shifts? Why are they dropping out as drivers more than men? Why are we rewarding people for speeding? This just kicks the can a way down the road, rather than explaining everything.
Last I checked, all the people born that I know about had two parents, one male and one female. This suggests that it isn't just the woman who's making that choice.
Sure I remember it. It really wasn't all that popular, because it was so friggin' expensive, and there was no follow-up. I'm not actually sure NASA could get people back to the moon in ten years, although it's obviously technically possible. The neat thing about private rockets is that there's competition, and they're freer to try things and buy parts from the best supplier, not the one in Senator Fubar's state.
Looks like pretty much the shuttle and Space-X launchers for now, unless you;re going to count the Buran. Since Space-X has shown the way, other people are following.
The shuttle dropped its solid fuel boosters in the water, and they were pretty much rebuilt. The orbiter glided to a landing. The whole system was really expensive for launching stuff.
The Falcon Heavy landed the two boosters on land, coming down on their tails, exactly like rockets were depicted when I was young. The core, apparently, was not recovered. Nevertheless, it's inexpensive as launchers go.
Moreover, the shuttle was an expensive dead end (the Buran more of a dead end). Consider steam warships: the first one was the USS Demogorgon, and nothing developed from it. The British later built steam warships and those sparked a design revolution.
Sure. And it makes sense that the coolest technology test of 2018 is cooler than the coolest technology text of 1967.
Well, yes, in the exact same way that the iPhone wasn't innovative, except less so. Technologically, it's far advanced beyond the Saturn V, and it's a whole lot cheaper. It's going to transform the LEO market, and that will have lots of effects.
There's a difference between saying "We're the richest country on the planet, so we're going to build a few really big launches for really high-profile missions" and "We're a private company, and we're going to offer launch capacity better than anything since the Saturn relatively inexpensively".
Unless I'm mistaken, nobody but NASA has built something with that amount of payload weight, and nobody else has reasonably reliable booster recovery. (Looks like two out of three for this.)
And I'll assure you that modern C++ is a much better language for most things than FORTRAN IV, having experience with both.
I didn't see two parts of a Saturn V come in under rocket power for a simultaneous landing.
If a shop is using VB6, Haskell, and Perl, they've got people and software in those languages, and writing some new software in Forth is going to need the shop to develop new skills and support new software. Typically the overall structure is a lot harder to change than the structure of a single program or group of programs.
If we needed some utility, and someone said "Here's the version that works great on Linux and BSD", and it had to fit in with the rest of the software we've got, we couldn't use it. It would be far less work to port it to MS Windows and compensate for Windows' inefficiencies than to change everything else to work with Linux or BSD.
Most projects are not done by people just hired who come in and develop them from scratch, without regard to existing software. Most projects need to be supported by people who are already there, and don't actually know Snobol, and need to work on the systems they already have.
The first thing that occurred to me was, "Has anyone read traditional fairy tales?".
We allowed my son restricted "screen time" most of the time. It seemed to work. He's got an independent life and a well-paying job now.
Does someone want to tell this particular leftist what "post-modernist" actually means? I know that 'progressive" has turned into an insult among right-wingers, although you'd think progress would generally be a good thing. (Current Western civilization is the best ever, in many ways.)
One thing you need to understand is that people with all sorts of politics can be patriots. Their ideas as to what's good for the country may differ wildly, and their ideas about how to get there will differ more, but the country was founded partly on freedom of expression and encouraging diverse ideas.
I'm more concerned with the small but currently vocal right-wingers who want to drag us into fascism, right now. They're being more successful at this time.
Microsoft has a monopoly in enterprise desktop computing. It isn't a 100% market share, but it's enough.. The biggest changes in making money were due to the development of the tablet, and the fact that systems are satisfactory for a lot longer than they were in the 90s. Making an inferior product in their main area doesn't hurt them much, if at all. (Making an inferior product when they're trying to move into an area is different, as seen from the Surface write-off.) A monopoly is judges as one by how it works, not the market share (although you're not going to get a monopoly without a large market share).
Deregulating the production of power was likely a good thing, although some of the deregulation changes haven't been good. The last-mile distribution network is a natural monopoly, so it's regulated. There is, as you point out, competition for supplying power at a given point, but not in running wires to everywhere.
I haven't looked. Are there actual regulations giving the electric company a monopoly, or is it just correctly assumed that nobody else is going to come in? Cable companies no longer have guaranteed monopoly status, which doesn't stop them from being monopolies.
This was a critical job, and according to the stories I've read the employee wasn't up to it, and that the employee had screwed up more than once before. The employee might have done better elsewhere, perhaps with a less critical job. The person who made the decision to put a known risk in such a critical post is partly responsible for this. "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." - Montgomery Scott, chief engineer, Enterprise.
It is reasonable to fire an employee for incompetence, but it's also reasonable (and frequently cheaper) to see if there's other jobs the employee is better suited for. In cases where it's particularly hard to fire people, shuffling them off can be the best option. I also don't know how or why the employee screwed up before. If it's due to some sort of disability, the employer is required to try to figure out how to use the employee, and that often means moving the employee to a new job.
As far as firing the supervisor, this wasn't a case of a supervisor picking an employee and having a screw-up, from what I've read. If the employer has been unable to function in his duties on several occasions, that's more serious. One bad decision should not in general be a firing offense, but a pattern can be.
If we're doing this rigidly, then you're saying that reciting the official warning should cause the operator to issue the test alert. There have to be differences.
According to the operator's account, the announcement was put on speakerphone after the first "exercise exercise exercise" and cut off before the last. I don't know if it's true, but it's plausible. There was some confusion in the room, as it was shift change (and I'm not faulting having a practice during shift change). Counting on the words before and after the script to show it's a drill is dangerous.
The checklist can indeed be "call operator, read script...". The drill can contain a somewhat modified script.
Banking requires talent. Being a teller doesn't require much talent, but when you get higher up it's demanding. You seem to grossly underestimate the skill needed in activities you haven't bothered to understand.
I picked skydiving because my brother did it for a while. He quit when he broke his back, after making a mistake, and had to tell Mom he'd been skydiving. (She worried.) Yes, it requires skill, but so does banking.
Yeah, the Romans tended to be pragmatic bastards, and imported more theoretical stuff from the Greeks.
Democracy doesn't preclude imperialism and exploitation of colonies, as France demonstrated. (US and British colonies tended to be a lot better off than those of other countries, although that was a pretty low bar.) While Athens was a democracy, the Delian League was not.
The Third Reich arose from a representative democracy a lot faster the Roman Empire did, and we don't blame WWII and the Holocaust on the Weimar Republic. Democracies can be shaky, but many of the current ones seem well-established. No other form of government is more stable, as far as I can see. Monarchies may be, but monarchies can change, and many democracies nowadays are monarchies, with the monarch having limited power.
The Eastern Roman Empire was active for some time, and for a while controlled much of Italy. It did call for Western help, and got the First Crusade. After the Fourth Crusade, in which the crusaders sacked Constantinople rather than fight Muslims, the Emperors were probably less inclined to ask. It did hang on by its fingernails for a long time near the end, and at that time wasn't impressive.
You gave four cites. I found nothing suggesting that regulation caused the Great Recession in any of them, although I didn't read them all thoroughly. Indeed, they suggest that the Great Recession was due partly to deregulation, and that free enterprise can go wild in a dangerous way when not regulated.
So, I haven't seen evidence of democracy causing problems. Indeed, we've had democracies that have lasted for centuries. While overregulation can cause problems, so can deregulation.