I have heard of those things. But when you wrote, "Let's hear it for religion. Again." it wasn't clear whether your were saying all religiously inspired activity was bad, or just some.
I assumed you meant "all", because I don't see why you would have bothered commenting that some people claiming to be in group $X do evil stuff. Most of us assume that's true for just about any value of X.
My impression is that most physicians feel they have far too little time to investigate and think about patients' problems. In the U.S., I imagine that comes from a limited number of doctors, (proximately) from insurance companies.
I'd wager that if doctors, especially GP's, had twice as much time per patient, a lot of your concerns would be alleviated.
Most stores don't want to minimize your time in the story. I think they want to maximize the time you spend near high-margin impulse-buy items, and up-sells of the items you originally intended to buy.
If I was a sleazy developer of software like this, and especially if I had access to the customer's whole shopping list, I'd send them on a pretty different path than their ideal one.
FWIW, I use Slack for work, and I find it really useful. It's a pretty good way to connect normal email, github emails, and chat.
My only real beef with Slack is that its markdown language is a bit different than, and inferior to, Github's. Which is an annoyance when, for example, github markdown messages are rendered by Slack.
Did they actual show you how it violated those terms, or was it just a vague threat?
It was a vague threat, but the DoD can pull a security clearance for various reasons, which means sudden unemployment for the worker. So having ones clearance threatened is akin to be threatened with firing. Except it's a kind of firing that means you can't easily work anywhere else in that "industry" either. So it's a pretty attention-grabbing threat.
But it also shows the absurdity of the DoD leadership. They were specifically saying that people with clearances couldn't see info that everyone else on the planet could see. This kind of insanity was a major factor in me leaving the DoD. The movie "Catch 22" makes a lot more sense after you've worked with those people.
Assuming he thought this through, does that mean the US law is against the people knowing what their government is doing?
When I worked for the DoD, we were cautioned to not read newspaper pieces describing what Snowden revealed, because it violated the terms of our security clearances.
No, they will be too busy wondering how she ended up in the state pen for violation of federal law.
The combination of two factors:
1. Eric Holder has "broad discretion" in prosecuting federal crimes.
2. There are so many unexpected laws (Mississippi's silly ones include this list), that a committed prosecutor can always find something to convict you of.
That leads to my question- are you posting from Pyongyang?
Yes, yes I am. After spending years scouring the Internet, my small team of l88t Haxors realized that only one account, on one site, had the propaganda value we needed. It was DoofusOfDeath@slashdot.org. We're sure to get a second serving of rice balls for this exploit! Long live the god Kim Jung Un!
Let me try cleaning up your post for you, Senior Fussypants:
Dear original poster,
"STEM" is a very broad category of studies. Most of us who have jobs that could be called "STEM" jobs find that we're highly interested in some topics in this category (for example, software development), but not others (e.g., microbiology). Many of us are sufficiency interested in a broad cross-section of "STEM" topics to read about them on Wikipedia / Science Daily / EETimes / etc. But one thing is true of most of us: we're so interested in our particular corner of "STEM" topics that we've invested lots an and lots of time studying it and/or doing it as a hobby.
So when we hear you asking about "STEM" work in general, rather than something specific such as organic chemistry, that raises a few alarm bells in our minds.
First, if you're still thinking in such broad categorical terms as "STEM", it makes us think you're not particularly fascinated with any one particular subject area, such as organic chem or computer science. We fear for you: there's a long, hard path to proficiency in any of these areas, and we're concerned you lack the level of innate interest needed for you to succeed and to be happy.
The second alarm bell is that "STEM" is a buzzword du jour of politicians and educators who think of it as pixie dust. "STEM helps our economy!" "STEM workers make more money!" "Everyone can (and should) code, because STEM is great!" Those persons strike us as outside interlopers who are likely to damage our community and our productivity, because they have political power but not understanding. And so, when you use similar language, we're concerned that either (a) you've fallen for their foolish thinking, or (b) are a snowflake in the avalanche we fear is coming from their foolishness.
Please don't misunderstand us: if you're interested in putting in the time to learn the ropes, and you also have the right kind of mind, perhaps a number of different "STEM" jobs would suit you well. But you should expect to put in a lot of hours learning, and you should do a gut-check about whether or not you're really interested in spending 40 hours/week on it, year after year.
Slashdot Mirror
It's as if millions of left hands suddenly cried out in terror and stopped moving.
Speaking of "About Time", I recommend the movie of that name. It was a bit sad, but I felt worth the ride. Haunting musical score, too.
HOA rules: You can't have $(object X) sitting in your driveway.
$(object X) being a TARDIS neither makes me outraged, nor makes this news for nerds.
Mother Theresa was a closeted atheist:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/d...
It seems to me she was more of a closet agnostic.
I have heard of those things. But when you wrote, "Let's hear it for religion. Again." it wasn't clear whether your were saying all religiously inspired activity was bad, or just some.
I assumed you meant "all", because I don't see why you would have bothered commenting that some people claiming to be in group $X do evil stuff. Most of us assume that's true for just about any value of X.
Let's hear it for religion. Again.
Yeah, Mother Theresa was pretty vile.
I'll bet they're outsourcing $300M of work o India and China. Best spin ever!
My impression is that most physicians feel they have far too little time to investigate and think about patients' problems. In the U.S., I imagine that comes from a limited number of doctors, (proximately) from insurance companies.
I'd wager that if doctors, especially GP's, had twice as much time per patient, a lot of your concerns would be alleviated.
Or claiming that water fluoridation causes sterilization or vaccination causes autism or GMOs are killing us.
Liberal and Conservative sides can both be equally anti-science.
Agreed, but self-reporting research by Monsanto and Dow Chemical isn't science.
So this is Obama's attempt to prove the statement true?
The movie "Click" was a good reminder to me to not let work-related worries cause me to miss my childrens' childhoods.
Most stores don't want to minimize your time in the story. I think they want to maximize the time you spend near high-margin impulse-buy items, and up-sells of the items you originally intended to buy.
If I was a sleazy developer of software like this, and especially if I had access to the customer's whole shopping list, I'd send them on a pretty different path than their ideal one.
...you're going to have a bad time.
FWIW, I use Slack for work, and I find it really useful. It's a pretty good way to connect normal email, github emails, and chat.
My only real beef with Slack is that its markdown language is a bit different than, and inferior to, Github's. Which is an annoyance when, for example, github markdown messages are rendered by Slack.
I can't explain it. Such apparent idiocy was a major factor in me leaving the DoD.
Did they actual show you how it violated those terms, or was it just a vague threat?
It was a vague threat, but the DoD can pull a security clearance for various reasons, which means sudden unemployment for the worker. So having ones clearance threatened is akin to be threatened with firing. Except it's a kind of firing that means you can't easily work anywhere else in that "industry" either. So it's a pretty attention-grabbing threat.
But it also shows the absurdity of the DoD leadership. They were specifically saying that people with clearances couldn't see info that everyone else on the planet could see. This kind of insanity was a major factor in me leaving the DoD. The movie "Catch 22" makes a lot more sense after you've worked with those people.
Assuming he thought this through, does that mean the US law is against the people knowing what their government is doing?
When I worked for the DoD, we were cautioned to not read newspaper pieces describing what Snowden revealed, because it violated the terms of our security clearances.
The blame?
I imagine Bush.
Actually, that's a good point. Do they let Chuck Norris onto an airplane?
You just gave some RIAA lawyer a brain aneurysm.
We asked very different things of librarians and Google.
Me to librarian (in the early 1980's): Where can I find a good book on sharks?
me to Google: +tentacle porn midget chocolate sauce -"val kilmer"
The combination of two factors:
1. Eric Holder has "broad discretion" in prosecuting federal crimes.
2. There are so many unexpected laws (Mississippi's silly ones include this list), that a committed prosecutor can always find something to convict you of.
Nice to see Australian politicians are getting back to their ancestral criminal roots.
That leads to my question- are you posting from Pyongyang?
Yes, yes I am. After spending years scouring the Internet, my small team of l88t Haxors realized that only one account, on one site, had the propaganda value we needed. It was DoofusOfDeath@slashdot.org. We're sure to get a second serving of rice balls for this exploit! Long live the god Kim Jung Un!
Why should we believe anything the "senior intelligence officials" tell us? They have a profound record of lying.
Let me try cleaning up your post for you, Senior Fussypants:
Dear original poster,
"STEM" is a very broad category of studies. Most of us who have jobs that could be called "STEM" jobs find that we're highly interested in some topics in this category (for example, software development), but not others (e.g., microbiology). Many of us are sufficiency interested in a broad cross-section of "STEM" topics to read about them on Wikipedia / Science Daily / EETimes / etc. But one thing is true of most of us: we're so interested in our particular corner of "STEM" topics that we've invested lots an and lots of time studying it and/or doing it as a hobby.
So when we hear you asking about "STEM" work in general, rather than something specific such as organic chemistry, that raises a few alarm bells in our minds.
First, if you're still thinking in such broad categorical terms as "STEM", it makes us think you're not particularly fascinated with any one particular subject area, such as organic chem or computer science. We fear for you: there's a long, hard path to proficiency in any of these areas, and we're concerned you lack the level of innate interest needed for you to succeed and to be happy.
The second alarm bell is that "STEM" is a buzzword du jour of politicians and educators who think of it as pixie dust. "STEM helps our economy!" "STEM workers make more money!" "Everyone can (and should) code, because STEM is great!" Those persons strike us as outside interlopers who are likely to damage our community and our productivity, because they have political power but not understanding. And so, when you use similar language, we're concerned that either (a) you've fallen for their foolish thinking, or (b) are a snowflake in the avalanche we fear is coming from their foolishness.
Please don't misunderstand us: if you're interested in putting in the time to learn the ropes, and you also have the right kind of mind, perhaps a number of different "STEM" jobs would suit you well. But you should expect to put in a lot of hours learning, and you should do a gut-check about whether or not you're really interested in spending 40 hours/week on it, year after year.