...the trend is that IT and computer "science" jobs are going away to foreigners, and as quickly as management can pull it off. Congress is complicit, too.
For fun, look at the spelling in the responses here: "Plummer"? "Exagerate"?
*These* are the people you want to emulate?
Try something *creative*, where you can't be disintermediated (look it up).
See "Climate of fear", by Richard Lindzen, an MIT scientist, below.
Do try to be open-minded, and not a sheeple:
Climate of Fear Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence.
BY RICHARD LINDZEN Wednesday, April 12, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT
There have been repeated claims that this past year's hurricane activity was another sign of human-induced climate change. Everything from the heat wave in Paris to heavy snows in Buffalo has been blamed on people burning gasoline to fuel their cars, and coal and natural gas to heat, cool and electrify their homes. Yet how can a barely discernible, one-degree increase in the recorded global mean temperature since the late 19th century possibly gain public acceptance as the source of recent weather catastrophes? And how can it translate into unlikely claims about future catastrophes?
The answer has much to do with misunderstanding the science of climate, plus a willingness to debase climate science into a triangle of alarmism. Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policy makers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes. After all, who puts money into science--whether for AIDS, or space, or climate--where there is nothing really alarming? Indeed, the success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today. It can also be seen in heightened spending on solar, wind, hydrogen, ethanol and clean coal technologies, as well as on other energy-investment decisions.
But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.
To understand the misconceptions perpetuated about climate science and the climate of intimidation, one needs to grasp some of the complex underlying scientific issues. First, let's start where there is agreement. The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred. In fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of alarm are actually demonstrating skepticism of the very science they say supports them. It isn't just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming.
If the models are correct, global warming reduces the temperature differences between the poles and the equator. When you have less difference in temperature, you have less excitation of extratropical storms, not more. And, in fact, model runs support this conclusion. Alarmists have drawn some support for increased claims of tropical storminess from a casual claim by Sir John Houghton of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a warmer world would have more evaporation, with latent heat providing more energy for disturbances. The problem with this is that the ability of evaporation to drive tropical storms relies not only on temperature but humidity as well, and calls for drier, less humid air. Claims for starkly higher temperatures are based upon there being more humidity, n
Slashdot Mirror
I call "Bullshit". Makes no sense. If you encoded every single fiber visible on a page, you'd not have the claimed storage.
Since when?
44 is barely "mature", come on!!!!
also, "no real evidence has been produced to prove that (Air, sun, water) is safe in the long term".
Idiots. Dullards.
Not "code re-use", re-re-re-discovered again?
...and grow up.
...pop the hard drive out and pack it elsewhere.
Duh.
BWilde.
...like Mexico (winter) and Wyoming (summer).
Obvious. No point in throwing your hard-earned money away in urban hell-holes. Works for me.
BWilde.
...when you say "increased by 22 times".
Inflation has been 7.58x since 1954 (http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl)
Yeah, yeah, your ratios still work out... *IF* you think you can apply inflation numbers to "out-of-basket" items like housing.
BWilde.
...as I happily continue to design medical devices and their associated systems, like I've done for many, many years.
BWilde.
Illiterate jerk!
Watch your job go offshore? Game's over, for a LONG time now.
Better to go to law school.
BWilde
...and never use credit, but still want a job?
You'll have no history. Is this good or bad?
BWilde
...and irrelevant the topic and question are.
Better debate: How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
BWilde
...well, that is unless you think planes can't go faster than sound.
You'd think that a quaint 50s term like "sound barrier" would have died off by now, but no.
You're a "hater". That was a "hate crime".
....doesn't mean it's got a chance in hell of happening.
At ease, everyone.
Yeah, like that change from controlled flight to uncontrolled flight.
I'll take cables, anyday.
Looks like they skipped that step.
Kinda like some software developers.
..."Mass." is the abbreviation for the state of Massachusetts. Yes, it matters.
...it's just a bunch of quasi-mature people spouting.
Low info density, really.
Bye.
Quite presumptuous to say "everyone".
I use a mouse that allows my hand to be in a thumb-up position, no strain.
"My prediction is that as we get out of the Bush dark ages, corrective measures will be passed to stop certain forms of offshore activity".
No, the democrats will sell us out even faster... they do that kind of thing, too, you see.
Just wait.
BWilde.
...the trend is that IT and computer "science" jobs are going away to foreigners, and as quickly as management can pull it off. Congress is complicit, too.
For fun, look at the spelling in the responses here: "Plummer"? "Exagerate"?
*These* are the people you want to emulate?
Try something *creative*, where you can't be disintermediated (look it up).
BWilde.
well, it equals what we have now.
See "Climate of fear", by Richard Lindzen, an MIT scientist, below.
Do try to be open-minded, and not a sheeple:
Climate of Fear
Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence.
BY RICHARD LINDZEN
Wednesday, April 12, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT
There have been repeated claims that this past year's hurricane activity was another sign of human-induced climate change. Everything from the heat wave in Paris to heavy snows in Buffalo has been blamed on people burning gasoline to fuel their cars, and coal and natural gas to heat, cool and electrify their homes. Yet how can a barely discernible, one-degree increase in the recorded global mean temperature since the late 19th century possibly gain public acceptance as the source of recent weather catastrophes? And how can it translate into unlikely claims about future catastrophes?
The answer has much to do with misunderstanding the science of climate, plus a willingness to debase climate science into a triangle of alarmism. Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policy makers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes. After all, who puts money into science--whether for AIDS, or space, or climate--where there is nothing really alarming? Indeed, the success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today. It can also be seen in heightened spending on solar, wind, hydrogen, ethanol and clean coal technologies, as well as on other energy-investment decisions.
But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.
To understand the misconceptions perpetuated about climate science and the climate of intimidation, one needs to grasp some of the complex underlying scientific issues. First, let's start where there is agreement. The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred. In fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of alarm are actually demonstrating skepticism of the very science they say supports them. It isn't just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming.
If the models are correct, global warming reduces the temperature differences between the poles and the equator. When you have less difference in temperature, you have less excitation of extratropical storms, not more. And, in fact, model runs support this conclusion. Alarmists have drawn some support for increased claims of tropical storminess from a casual claim by Sir John Houghton of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a warmer world would have more evaporation, with latent heat providing more energy for disturbances. The problem with this is that the ability of evaporation to drive tropical storms relies not only on temperature but humidity as well, and calls for drier, less humid air. Claims for starkly higher temperatures are based upon there being more humidity, n
...running Windows?
Yech. You bigots make me sick.