Indeed. That's partly why I believe we should tax the rich to help fund post-high-school education, including trade schools. That's a better solution for jobs than trying to bring back 1970-style factories by starting trade wars. Democrats sold that idea poorly, and that's why the out-of-touch Orange Guy won.
Now, none of those at-risk STEM program students work in STEM, and I do.
Doesn't mean they are not doing well in general. STEM is not the only game in town. STEM is often a dead-end career anyhow unless you are cut out for management. Ageism is rampant. Sure, STEM fields have done well for the last 15 years or so, but there is no guarantee that will continue. There were STEM slumps approximately around 1983, 1992, and 2002. One of them was the worse time ever in my life.
For example, if something sane replaced the stupid/illogical/bloated web "standards", half the dev positions would disappear. I remember how VB/Delphi/PowerBuilder sliced development staff in half from what C++ required. Those products abstracted away low-level grunt work from typical CRUD/GUI apps. The displaced C++'ers lamented on the loss of control over certain details, but bosses/owners accept loss of some control for 1/2 the tech staff cost. (The market was expanding fast enough that C++'ers found other jobs, just not internal generic CRUD.)
The web was not created with typical CRUD in mind and the adding it as an after-thought has made it ugly. A new standard may be CRUD-friendly. Sure, generic CRUD programming is not everything, but a big enough slice of the market to rock IT employment if it changes/shrinks.
Something equivalent could happen again, and BOOM! 2002 all over again. Or should I say, UnBoom. The only thing predictable about the future is that it's unpredictable.
Maybe it's subjective. Different noses react to different chemicals in different ways. I suppose a study could be done to determine an average response from randomly sampled people. But, I don't have a million bucks to pay for such a study.
Unfortunately, there is no evidence to dispute the claim either.
There is also no evidence to dispute the claim Trump's brain is controlled by space aliens. But that doesn't make it an "almost truth"... although, that hair...
Do mainstream Democrats actually believe that the election was somehow stolen from them
That's mostly a moot question: other nations tried, and we should not give them a shot at changing the outcome in the future either way. Many Presidential elections have been close.
Fixed that for ya. State politics can be just as screwy as national, sometimes more so. For example, if a state is say 70% a given party, the majority party often will play games to strengthen their power-hold over the minority party in the state.
We cannot even say if a self-sustaining colony is even possible: it's never been tried, and would take decades to find out. I'm mostly comparing here-and-now technology.
Not only that but human poop carries way more disease than horse poop.
I hardly see how that can be. But it could be a matter of perspective: horse germs are more dangerous to horses and human germs are more dangerous to humans because microbes tend to specialize. Therefore, species-X-poo is going to be more dangerous to a random member of species-X than species-Y's poo.
As far as the smell, I live fairly close to a horse trail, and under certain circumstances, horse poo does really really stink.
(Can't believe I'm debating horse poo vs. human poo. Slashdot has gone to shit, literally;-)
Regarding going back to paper ballots, the current interpretation of the Constitution is that each state can implement the mechanics of voting as they see fit. It would be difficult to dictate paper ballots on a Federal level.
There are real benefits to boots on ground in exploration. Astronauts work much fast, can carry out a much broader range of experiments and are more versatile than robotic probes.
I'm skeptical because:
1. Robots can take their sweet time. They can study a rock formation for weeks or months if need be. No hurry is necessary.
2. Expert geologists can study photos and scans of a site for many days before picking sub-targets. You don't need quick assessments.
3. Robots are far cheaper. Send redundant bots if you worry about breakdowns.
4. You can explore more real-estate and collect samples from more sites for the same money.
5. If bleep happens, people don't die. Nobody cried over a bot (except maybe those terminated when a mission flubs.)
6. Bots have better "eyes" and "ears" because they can get info from more frequencies and longer scans. Hand-held scanners for humans are not up to the task yet; and if you rely on such scanners, you might as well send bots anyhow.
7. You don't have to do everything in one step or mission. Surveying, collection, and sample return can be multiple missions.
[Apollo] performed experiments that simply could not be done with robotic probes.
Example? While I agree there may be things that humans spot that bots miss, the reverse is also true. Their strengths are different, but overall, the bots are a more logical deal. Human missions may be better P/R and glory, I will agree. But not in raw science-per-dollar.
a few years ago they did a big media splash about a 'design project' wanting public input, mostly on what colour and fashion style...if they had spent just a little more time designing an actual space suit, and less time on PR/Public Image...
Indeed. The probability of hitting the existing schedule is roughly less than 10% based on their estimation history.
There is less professional risk in making optimistic estimates than making pessimistic estimates because pessimism will hurt your career now, versus say 5 years away. Would you rather get slapped now, or in 2023? One may not even be with the same org in 5 years.
The only thing likely to stop the slip is another nation embarrassing us with some dazzling space activity: AKA "Sputnik 2.0"
Sorry, but I've met plenty of clueless blowhards in other specialties. Perhaps the Asperger nature of IT people means they are worse at hiding or presenting their arrogance: they don't sugarcoat their strong opinions as often.
Congress could solve this simply by refusing to guarantee loans for students at universities that increase tuition more than 2% for 10 years, then the rate of inflation after that.
And/or put an upper limit on loans. If you fund Cadillac educations, you'll get more Cadillacs.
Oatmeal and hot grain cereal is cheap if you buy bulk. Yes, it may be boring, but technically you can eat cheap and healthy. Throw in an occasional ramen for variety.
They may use them to be compatible when needed, but it's often not their primary or favored device. If their favorite software can work on Android, they'll ignore the Wintel laptop.
Slashdot Mirror
So they allow Anonymous Cowards to vote?
Indeed. That's partly why I believe we should tax the rich to help fund post-high-school education, including trade schools. That's a better solution for jobs than trying to bring back 1970-style factories by starting trade wars. Democrats sold that idea poorly, and that's why the out-of-touch Orange Guy won.
Doesn't mean they are not doing well in general. STEM is not the only game in town. STEM is often a dead-end career anyhow unless you are cut out for management. Ageism is rampant. Sure, STEM fields have done well for the last 15 years or so, but there is no guarantee that will continue. There were STEM slumps approximately around 1983, 1992, and 2002. One of them was the worse time ever in my life.
For example, if something sane replaced the stupid/illogical/bloated web "standards", half the dev positions would disappear. I remember how VB/Delphi/PowerBuilder sliced development staff in half from what C++ required. Those products abstracted away low-level grunt work from typical CRUD/GUI apps. The displaced C++'ers lamented on the loss of control over certain details, but bosses/owners accept loss of some control for 1/2 the tech staff cost. (The market was expanding fast enough that C++'ers found other jobs, just not internal generic CRUD.)
The web was not created with typical CRUD in mind and the adding it as an after-thought has made it ugly. A new standard may be CRUD-friendly. Sure, generic CRUD programming is not everything, but a big enough slice of the market to rock IT employment if it changes/shrinks.
Something equivalent could happen again, and BOOM! 2002 all over again. Or should I say, UnBoom. The only thing predictable about the future is that it's unpredictable.
I dated one. Unicorns exist and I have proof.
However, most don't look related to horses (except for maybe from behind).
Maybe it's subjective. Different noses react to different chemicals in different ways. I suppose a study could be done to determine an average response from randomly sampled people. But, I don't have a million bucks to pay for such a study.
There is also no evidence to dispute the claim Trump's brain is controlled by space aliens. But that doesn't make it an "almost truth" ... although, that hair ...
That's mostly a moot question: other nations tried, and we should not give them a shot at changing the outcome in the future either way. Many Presidential elections have been close.
No real evidence of that, just claims.
Fixed that for ya. State politics can be just as screwy as national, sometimes more so. For example, if a state is say 70% a given party, the majority party often will play games to strengthen their power-hold over the minority party in the state.
We cannot even say if a self-sustaining colony is even possible: it's never been tried, and would take decades to find out. I'm mostly comparing here-and-now technology.
I hardly see how that can be. But it could be a matter of perspective: horse germs are more dangerous to horses and human germs are more dangerous to humans because microbes tend to specialize. Therefore, species-X-poo is going to be more dangerous to a random member of species-X than species-Y's poo.
As far as the smell, I live fairly close to a horse trail, and under certain circumstances, horse poo does really really stink.
(Can't believe I'm debating horse poo vs. human poo. Slashdot has gone to shit, literally ;-)
Regarding going back to paper ballots, the current interpretation of the Constitution is that each state can implement the mechanics of voting as they see fit. It would be difficult to dictate paper ballots on a Federal level.
That's a classic PHB viewpoint: "We haven't got hacked yet, so why spend resources on security safeguards?"
We know other countries were trying. Just because they were not successful (that we know of*) is NOT a reason to not guard against future attacks.
GOP, you should be spanked for shortsighted thinking. (Don't even get me started about debt hypocrisy.)
* To some extent they were successful.
Um, Texas has its own forms of crony capitalism.
This is probably crony capitalism, not socialism. The restaurant lobby bribes their way in.
I'm skeptical because:
1. Robots can take their sweet time. They can study a rock formation for weeks or months if need be. No hurry is necessary.
2. Expert geologists can study photos and scans of a site for many days before picking sub-targets. You don't need quick assessments.
3. Robots are far cheaper. Send redundant bots if you worry about breakdowns.
4. You can explore more real-estate and collect samples from more sites for the same money.
5. If bleep happens, people don't die. Nobody cried over a bot (except maybe those terminated when a mission flubs.)
6. Bots have better "eyes" and "ears" because they can get info from more frequencies and longer scans. Hand-held scanners for humans are not up to the task yet; and if you rely on such scanners, you might as well send bots anyhow.
7. You don't have to do everything in one step or mission. Surveying, collection, and sample return can be multiple missions.
Example? While I agree there may be things that humans spot that bots miss, the reverse is also true. Their strengths are different, but overall, the bots are a more logical deal. Human missions may be better P/R and glory, I will agree. But not in raw science-per-dollar.
As usual, the WebTubes beat you to it.
Shhhh, Dude, you are ruining a good thing.
Indeed. The probability of hitting the existing schedule is roughly less than 10% based on their estimation history.
There is less professional risk in making optimistic estimates than making pessimistic estimates because pessimism will hurt your career now, versus say 5 years away. Would you rather get slapped now, or in 2023? One may not even be with the same org in 5 years.
The only thing likely to stop the slip is another nation embarrassing us with some dazzling space activity: AKA "Sputnik 2.0"
Sorry, but I've met plenty of clueless blowhards in other specialties. Perhaps the Asperger nature of IT people means they are worse at hiding or presenting their arrogance: they don't sugarcoat their strong opinions as often.
And/or put an upper limit on loans. If you fund Cadillac educations, you'll get more Cadillacs.
Oatmeal and hot grain cereal is cheap if you buy bulk. Yes, it may be boring, but technically you can eat cheap and healthy. Throw in an occasional ramen for variety.
Here's some non-fake news: humans are more like Ferengis than Vulcans.
They may use them to be compatible when needed, but it's often not their primary or favored device. If their favorite software can work on Android, they'll ignore the Wintel laptop.
You are all cowbots. Cowbots say MooBeep. Say MOOOOBEEP! MOOOBEEP! You NORDEA COWBOTS!!
ftfy