No, you're wrong. You can use "it" to refer to an object, but not a person. It's just rude.
The first "it" is different as it was used like "it is raining". The repetition of "it" was clearly deliberate, to enable a dig at a trans-gendered person.
There's no point trying to weasel out of it, we get that you don't like the idea of trans-gender.
I may be wrong, but I somehow doubt that the unions were running the pension funds and company investments.
And I'm all in favour of robotic manufacturing, I just expect the benefits to be shared out equally, not focussed into the hands of a few people who can afford to buy robotic factories.
So programmers have not really needed unions because getting more money is easily done, if desired...
Well, lucky you then.
The vast majority of people are not paid that much, and would be paid even less if there were no controls (by unions, or government) over their being exploited.
Do you think that all the people cleaning toilets on minimum wage have the same freedoms as you do? Seriously?
Unions are also anti-worker because most of the ones that exist today started via mafia style tactics (threatening workers who didn't join the union and pay dues with violence, in addition to threatening business owners with violence.)
You fully realize that at the time, the business owners were using violence themselves? Not to mention ignoring safety, paying in scrip, and all sorts of wonderful conduct that gets handwaved today,
That's justification for union organizers/leaders threatening and physically attacking workers?
If there's a war going on, you generally have to choose one side or the other. If the unions were having to resist violence with violence, anyone opposing the union was on the bosses' side.
Oddly enough, at the time unions were being fomed, the bosses didn't have much interest in paying decent wages, lowering hours and having safe working conditions unless they were forced to.
Sometimes you have to fight for freedom against oppression. I'd have thought people from the US would appreciate this, but I suppose it's not as exciting as dreaming about overthrowing the government with machine guns because they're too "liberal" for your liking.
Unions are also anti-worker because most of the ones that exist today started via mafia style tactics (threatening workers who didn't join the union and pay dues with violence, in addition to threatening business owners with violence.)
The whole history of business in the US is based on violence. The unions had to fight fire with fire. It was a bit hard to peacefully protest against gangs of armed strikebreakers.
In my experience it has only ever been business owners and directors who have had the power to get rid of "troublesome" workers, because they can, you know, fire them and stuff.
In the unlikely event that you find a firm with a closed union shop, don't forget that this can only happen with the agreement of the owners. So you as an individual might think you are more important than (a) the majority of workers and (b) those who actually own and run the company. But you're not.
Comments like this make me remember why unions were invented in the first place.
Yes, some awesome precious snowflakes can flit around quite as easily from enormously well paid job to enormously well paid job.
Meanwhile, the other 99.9% of the workforce get shat on by the owners.
I'm afraid the unlimited freedom of a few people doesn't matter more to me than the general well being of the vast majority.
I seem to have slipped in keeping up with science from the standpoint of an educated layman and a big reason is my distaste for what Scientific American has become. What are some recommendations for websites that have the scientific quality of the "old" Scientific American? Thanks!
Do they hand out a little book of cliches to kids graduating high school in the US that they are legally obliged to refer to in any internet discussion?
I'm not sure why the same tenuously related bollocks keeps cropping up otherwise.
Take a tap from the cluebat: a credible threat to kill someone can't be explained away as "free speech" or "performance art" just by saying it's rap lyrics.
It's got nothing to do with third parties being offended.
What kind of cheese will they use to simulate human flesh, like the test flight of Space-X's Dragon. There a new tradition to uphold!
I hope that don't use chedder or god forbid, Velveeta processed cheese product. I am hoping for Welseydale! Wallace is right, it really is the best. NASA can recover the cost by sale it in 100 gram pieces after recovery at Space Cheese premium prices!
Are you insane? Wensleydale is far too crumbly. A dense German processed cheese would be more realistic.
And if we do nothing, nothing will get done. Stop judging progress in terms of dollars.
Since you won't, fuck you.
Since we haven't invented a source of limitless wealth, you have to judge everything in terms of dollars. If we spend almost all our resources on building a play tent for half a dozen adventurers on the Moon, and see the rest of the inhabitants of planet Earth revert to a pre-Stone Age existence, would it really be worth it?
For that, you need to ask if space exploration in general is something worth doing? Presuming that there is something worth doing in space at all, you need eventually to put a crew there.
What makes you think that?
In the short term, I agree. But in the long term, if we can't work out how to support large numbers of people off the Earth, there's precious little point in going into space at all.
Are there now politically correct and non-politically correct ways to take samples of asteroids?
What's political correctness got to do with it? If the asteroid belongs to an advanced alien civilisation, they might take it as a declaration of war, and vapourise the Earth with an anti-matter bomb. Or something.
Slashdot Mirror
I can play bongos while driving,
Jesus wept.
Contributed, or was present? I can believe one, would like to see the underlying data that proves the other.
You could say the same for drink driving too.
This is not a defence of drink driving.
Now let me tell you about how I drive much better with a relaxing bottle of wine and a couple of brandies inside me.
The first "it" is different as it was used like "it is raining". The repetition of "it" was clearly deliberate, to enable a dig at a trans-gendered person.
There's no point trying to weasel out of it, we get that you don't like the idea of trans-gender.
Stupid and lazy people are not excluded from union membership.
Nor from becoming CEOs. And despite the truly bizarre anti-reality stories here on slashdot, it's not the unions who run the companies.
And I'm all in favour of robotic manufacturing, I just expect the benefits to be shared out equally, not focussed into the hands of a few people who can afford to buy robotic factories.
It will be difficult to unionize professional developers because, in general, they are more educated than the traditional unionized laborer.
Being highly trained as a code producing money monkey doesn't make you well educated.
Don't assume we all know who this "Steinbeck" person is. I had to Google him... first thing I thought was "Steinway," as in the piano company.
He did win the Nobel Prize for Literature, so he's hardly an unknown or niche writer.
As he's a sort of anti-Ayn Rand, I don't suppose he's too popular amongst slashdot readers though.
I can always sell my stock, and work elsewhere
"..while I drive away in my Ferrari getting a blowjob from my supermodel girlfriend..."
So programmers have not really needed unions because getting more money is easily done, if desired...
Well, lucky you then.
The vast majority of people are not paid that much, and would be paid even less if there were no controls (by unions, or government) over their being exploited.
Do you think that all the people cleaning toilets on minimum wage have the same freedoms as you do? Seriously?
Unions are also anti-worker because most of the ones that exist today started via mafia style tactics (threatening workers who didn't join the union and pay dues with violence, in addition to threatening business owners with violence.)
You fully realize that at the time, the business owners were using violence themselves? Not to mention ignoring safety, paying in scrip, and all sorts of wonderful conduct that gets handwaved today,
That's justification for union organizers/leaders threatening and physically attacking workers?
If there's a war going on, you generally have to choose one side or the other. If the unions were having to resist violence with violence, anyone opposing the union was on the bosses' side.
Oddly enough, at the time unions were being fomed, the bosses didn't have much interest in paying decent wages, lowering hours and having safe working conditions unless they were forced to.
Sometimes you have to fight for freedom against oppression. I'd have thought people from the US would appreciate this, but I suppose it's not as exciting as dreaming about overthrowing the government with machine guns because they're too "liberal" for your liking.
Unions are also anti-worker because most of the ones that exist today started via mafia style tactics (threatening workers who didn't join the union and pay dues with violence, in addition to threatening business owners with violence.)
The whole history of business in the US is based on violence. The unions had to fight fire with fire. It was a bit hard to peacefully protest against gangs of armed strikebreakers.
In the unlikely event that you find a firm with a closed union shop, don't forget that this can only happen with the agreement of the owners. So you as an individual might think you are more important than (a) the majority of workers and (b) those who actually own and run the company. But you're not.
Yes, some awesome precious snowflakes can flit around quite as easily from enormously well paid job to enormously well paid job.
Meanwhile, the other 99.9% of the workforce get shat on by the owners.
I'm afraid the unlimited freedom of a few people doesn't matter more to me than the general well being of the vast majority.
Socialism, I know.
But then the whole "time passes in only one direction" thing is a serious weak spot in our current understanding of the universe
I believe the conventional counter-argument is "if time travel were possible, why don't we have any time travelling visitors?"
Similar to the Fermi Paradox about alien life.
I seem to have slipped in keeping up with science from the standpoint of an educated layman and a big reason is my distaste for what Scientific American has become. What are some recommendations for websites that have the scientific quality of the "old" Scientific American? Thanks!
You're posting on that website now!
faster than light travel will be no problem at all once we start to crack the gravity nut.
Yeah, never mind that it would abolish causality and permit time travel paradoxes, clearly it's just another engineering problem.
There is no right to not be offended.
Do they hand out a little book of cliches to kids graduating high school in the US that they are legally obliged to refer to in any internet discussion?
I'm not sure why the same tenuously related bollocks keeps cropping up otherwise.
Take a tap from the cluebat: a credible threat to kill someone can't be explained away as "free speech" or "performance art" just by saying it's rap lyrics.
It's got nothing to do with third parties being offended.
What kind of cheese will they use to simulate human flesh, like the test flight of Space-X's Dragon. There a new tradition to uphold!
I hope that don't use chedder or god forbid, Velveeta processed cheese product. I am hoping for Welseydale! Wallace is right, it really is the best. NASA can recover the cost by sale it in 100 gram pieces after recovery at Space Cheese premium prices!
Are you insane? Wensleydale is far too crumbly. A dense German processed cheese would be more realistic.
And if we do nothing, nothing will get done. Stop judging progress in terms of dollars.
Since you won't, fuck you.
Since we haven't invented a source of limitless wealth, you have to judge everything in terms of dollars. If we spend almost all our resources on building a play tent for half a dozen adventurers on the Moon, and see the rest of the inhabitants of planet Earth revert to a pre-Stone Age existence, would it really be worth it?
If some billionaires can get to the Moon before NASA can return, my hat is off to them.
What's the easiest way to end up as a billionaire in the private space industry?
Start as a multi-billionaire.
For that, you need to ask if space exploration in general is something worth doing? Presuming that there is something worth doing in space at all, you need eventually to put a crew there.
What makes you think that?
In the short term, I agree. But in the long term, if we can't work out how to support large numbers of people off the Earth, there's precious little point in going into space at all.
The 1990s called and want their joke back.
Are there now politically correct and non-politically correct ways to take samples of asteroids?
What's political correctness got to do with it? If the asteroid belongs to an advanced alien civilisation, they might take it as a declaration of war, and vapourise the Earth with an anti-matter bomb. Or something.
If you just take the CAPITALISED words and ignore the rest inbetween, you still get a load of nonsense, but at least it's only a couple of lines.