> when the physics does a very good job of explaining the current climate
I am a physicist by education and by character. In physics "doing a very good job of explaining" means not only explaining, but also predicting and predicting good.
No, he'd rather post thought-out analysis of legal and possibly ethical implications of said company's business.that happens to take the snarky cynical form that you so wittily grasped
*like. If somebody thought that this was some kind of word play and modded up because of that (that's the only explanation of modups I have: my typo somehow made my comment clever beyond my understanding), it was not.
One thing I learned working with genomes of pathogenic microorganisms is that unless you are virologist studying rabies, you should avoid rage at all cost.
Yesterday I was listening to C-SPAN, and they were discussing a concept of crime under passion, giving an example of jealous husband who stumbles upon his wife having sex with another man, and that in some jurisdictions it's considered as a factor for sentence reduction.
I think snatching a camera when the owner is actively abusing "being in public" concept, could fall into that category.
The only question remains is "why should we bring back extinct or near extinct species" and "because we can" is not the acceptable answer.
"Why" does not mean "why should we do it". There is no law against cloning mammoths. "Why" always means "why taxpayers should finance this".
Are you saying that if last hundred pandas in the wild finally get fed up with sex even once a year the whole Chinese ecosystem will collapse? If the species is near extinct, then it's already have homeophatic impact on the ecosystem, and extinction won't matter for ecology. And that's all this about, isn't it?
If somebody has personal feelings about extinct animals let him do it as a private enterprise.
Animals has gone extinct long before humans and at that time there were no-one to bleed their hearts about it. Now, thank you Western civilization, we have those bleeding hearts. I am not against existence of bleeding hearts, let them bleed whatever they want, I am just against bleeding hearts bleeding my paycheck.
That's educating anecdote. I am not arguing that working too much is not. There is a moderation (the Prophet, sal Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam, taught us to be moderate, do not go to extremes).
I am against interference of government in this. It should be done on individual level. I had a friend, a Ukranian "bogatyr" (physically very strong man), brilliant molecular biologist, who used to wear T-shirts through severe Russian winter. He used to spend in the lab three days in a row, without sleep, doing experiments (granted, many molecular biology experiments are quite long). He was healthy as a bull (Russian idiom). Some people worked only 4-5 hours a day.
People should not be limited. It should be done on individual level. If a person can work productively only 6 hours a day, but has value to the organization even with these hours, it should be done this way. Good managers are able to spot slackers and distinguish them from brilliant workers who exhaust quickly.
I worked in IT since 1986 and I have never had any fixed hours or overtime. It has always been about performance - how much you do.
Fixating on one factor that affects productivity is stupid. Let people decided themselves. If someone can do more in 40 hours than in 80 hours - fine. Let him do it. If someone wants to work 80 hours, fine let him doing. Ask about project progress, not how many hours he was logged in or occupied the chair.
Unless you are talking about Chrysler shop in Detroit.
Slashdot Mirror
> when the physics does a very good job of explaining the current climate
I am a physicist by education and by character. In physics "doing a very good job of explaining" means not only explaining, but also predicting and predicting good.
bq. but the pro-science side has data much longer than 100 years
And here it is, pages 4-8,12-16
Brownouts are not a problem of climate change. It's another corporate problem of lazy power monopolies being lazy power monopolies.
Judge Rules general method of deriving your music from Pi Is Non-Copyrightable.
No, he'd rather post thought-out analysis of legal and possibly ethical implications of said company's business.that happens to take the snarky cynical form that you so wittily grasped
"The overall concept of evolution is no longer a theory"
Surely it ain't no scientific theory.
*like. If somebody thought that this was some kind of word play and modded up because of that (that's the only explanation of modups I have: my typo somehow made my comment clever beyond my understanding), it was not.
Didn't they learn from Fiorina fiasco?
I'd luck to congratulate submitter on a clever title. Does not happen very often here.
One thing I learned working with genomes of pathogenic microorganisms is that unless you are virologist studying rabies, you should avoid rage at all cost.
The only difference are comments which I will never get to because the subject is so made up.
"Apple tree's fruit allows Cambridge physicist to discover the law of gravity"
The cure is to read what led to those passages. But then you will become depressed for a different reason.
Yesterday I was listening to C-SPAN, and they were discussing a concept of crime under passion, giving an example of jealous husband who stumbles upon his wife having sex with another man, and that in some jurisdictions it's considered as a factor for sentence reduction.
I think snatching a camera when the owner is actively abusing "being in public" concept, could fall into that category.
The only question remains is "why should we bring back extinct or near extinct species" and "because we can" is not the acceptable answer.
"Why" does not mean "why should we do it". There is no law against cloning mammoths. "Why" always means "why taxpayers should finance this".
Are you saying that if last hundred pandas in the wild finally get fed up with sex even once a year the whole Chinese ecosystem will collapse? If the species is near extinct, then it's already have homeophatic impact on the ecosystem, and extinction won't matter for ecology. And that's all this about, isn't it?
If somebody has personal feelings about extinct animals let him do it as a private enterprise.
Animals has gone extinct long before humans and at that time there were no-one to bleed their hearts about it. Now, thank you Western civilization, we have those bleeding hearts. I am not against existence of bleeding hearts, let them bleed whatever they want, I am just against bleeding hearts bleeding my paycheck.
Kafka?
That's educating anecdote. I am not arguing that working too much is not. There is a moderation (the Prophet, sal Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam, taught us to be moderate, do not go to extremes).
I am against interference of government in this. It should be done on individual level. I had a friend, a Ukranian "bogatyr" (physically very strong man), brilliant molecular biologist, who used to wear T-shirts through severe Russian winter. He used to spend in the lab three days in a row, without sleep, doing experiments (granted, many molecular biology experiments are quite long). He was healthy as a bull (Russian idiom). Some people worked only 4-5 hours a day.
People should not be limited. It should be done on individual level. If a person can work productively only 6 hours a day, but has value to the organization even with these hours, it should be done this way. Good managers are able to spot slackers and distinguish them from brilliant workers who exhaust quickly.
I am going to stop talking to you now. It looks like you are some kind of imbecile.
I think there is a misunderstanding. Of course everybody is formally paid by the hour.
I meant that nobody really checks the hours, you write in your log standard numbers in the end of the week, that's it.
My IT work was heavily biased towards research rather than development. May be that explains.
home depot has a button on their checkout. I am not sure if useable or not.
I worked in IT since 1986 and I have never had any fixed hours or overtime. It has always been about performance - how much you do.
Fixating on one factor that affects productivity is stupid. Let people decided themselves. If someone can do more in 40 hours than in 80 hours - fine. Let him do it. If someone wants to work 80 hours, fine let him doing. Ask about project progress, not how many hours he was logged in or occupied the chair.
Unless you are talking about Chrysler shop in Detroit.
They hosted nice free user group on GUI design in their building 12 years ago.
Other than that it's a very big corporation with links to the military industrial complex.
You are a moron.
How is this all related to what I said?
>I would love such a drink.
I do not believe you. The only reason people like coffee, is because they like it after positive feed back loop developed taste->arousal->taste.
Most people did not like coffee first time they tried it, like most people did not like smoking and drinking. I surely remember my first impression.