Ethics? Ethics in the corporate world is what gets you the most cash. The corporate assholes live in a scruple-free culture.
Corporate ethics are different from country to country (compare how corps act in the US with corps in Japan or Germany.) Hell, even within this country, corporate ethics used to mean something not long ago.
Bullshit. The government has done more in my lifetime in the way of killing my dreams than any other single entity.
First world problem. I came to this country from the second poorest country in the world, and my wife is from Japan which has the 3rd largest nominal GDP. The opportunities we have had here to pursue our dreams are great. For me specifically.
It is true that the gap between the haves and have-nots has widen in the last 30 years, but c'mon. It is not doom and gloom. With all the difficulties that exist in this country, people can still get a better chance at pursuing their dreams than in most other countries. I scratch my head when people spout first world problems like you are doing right now.
Pension buys social peace and appeasement...
I can see a lot of peace when the future generations find themselves supporting pension systems that will not be able to support themselves when retirement time comes. Seriously, your claim is one hell of a slogan. And empty slogan, but a good slogan, nonetheless.
So why is that AC's fault?
It wasn't, but it makes one hell of a cheap, faux come-back
Japan was looking at both the F-35 and the Eurofighter, with the Eurofighter being obviously a better fit for them in pretty much every way.
I get what you're saying (since they asked for, and couldn't have the Raptor), but this is politics. The EU is not going to back Japan against China. The US, maybe. They're just cementing those ties.
Bingo. I would suspect that Canada is doing the same since it might be enforcing its rights in the Arctic.
The population of Canada is 35,105,000 people according to a google search.
Canada's planned purchase is the 6th-largest by a country and would further safeguard the $399 billion program.
If that "program" were instead just given to the people (it's their money after all), they'd *EACH* have $11,365 or basically a free car.
Imagine how much the country would change if every single person's tax dollars provided a voucher for $11,365 off of a vehicle purchase.
Talk about world change......
Giving away for free =/= investing. Give a $11K vehicle voucher to every person in the country, and most of it will go down the drain. That is just how human nature and economics are. I understand your sentiment as the whole purchase seems rather wasteful for a country that typically minds its own business and is not looking for opportunities to drop bombs half around the globe.
But your free-for-all vehicle voucher give away analogy is as bad to the economy (and maybe worse) than the purchase above.
I wonder whether anyone will remember doing this sort of maintenance (filling the tap water part) without some sort of big warning or display somewhere.
I wonder if anyone will remember changing oil as a sort of maintenance without some sort of big warning or display somewhere. #thestupiditburns
Just my job, generally. They've no idea how to run a software business, think agile means throwing a constant stream of changing requirements and bugs at you until the minute before "go live"
In my book that is enough to trigger a "find-another-job" response. Every job has its warts, but some are just too damned awful to deal with. Life is short. If we can't find our dream job, at least we should find jobs that do not turn us into burned out empty shells of men. Seriously, life is too short for that kind of shit.
That's not right; only from the light's perspective maybe.. it's still "only" traveling at 186kmph a second, it's not truly instantaneous. And I've never heard of the theory that suggests that if a person leaves earth and travels near light speed he'll be younger when he returns. He might not have aged, but not younger... unless he actually exceeds light speed.
Probably it was some type of a typo where he meant the returning brother is way younger than the brother that stayed (as opposed to just being "way younger" as stated in the OP's poorly worded response.)
Also, and playing Devil's Advocate a bit more, when the OP wrote this:
The time for light to travel from Earth to Andromeda is, essentially, zero (0) seconds
I'm reading it as the time that light (or anything travel AT the speed of light) "experiences" traveling from Andromeda to the Earth (or pretty much from any point A to any point B) is zero because of time dilation. True, it will take 2.5 million years (when measured from the POV of an observer not traveling at relativistic speeds), and travel is not instantaneous, but the traveler itself will experience time at a complete stoppage when travelling at the speed of light (or falling down a singularity) regardless of having traveled one inch or the entire width of the observable universe.
Automation improves productivity
Prove it.
Easy. Compare modern society with the steam-engine society at the start of the Industrial age. And compare that with Feudal societies. And compared that to hunter-gathering societies of the Paleolithic. Each newer society/economic system had a level of automation greater that its predecessors. Sedentary societies have handcrafting and agricultural processes that automated the manufacturing of goods (.ie. pottery wheel) and provision of food (animal-powered plow versus manual one.)
Steam-engine societies had means of mass production over their predecessors. And modern societies have much refined methods of manufacturing than those that relied on steam and coal.
Another example. Compare the US, even in this mild depression, or Japan or Germany, or whatever developed, industrialized against one of the many underdeveloped nations that lack substantial industrial activity. The difference between the former and the later is in the level of automation inherent in modern industrialization.
Do you need more examples?
or that a person is ethical while not subscribing at the very least to the basic, most fundamental human rights.
I'm curious. What, exactly, are the "basic, most fundamental human rights"?
Uh, I dunno. Don't rape. Don't steal. I'm sure any sensible (sensible =/= misanthropic fucktard savage) can come up with a few the general population of the civilized world can agree on.
And what is ethical about each of them?
Because they imbued the essence of right and wrong by stating things that cannot be done to an individual? After all, ethics deals with the study of right or wrong. source
Also, do you think that Christianity had anything to do with your list of "basic, fundamental human rights"?
No, I did not. But hey, don't let that stop you in the way of building a nice strawman (#whatthefuckiswrongwithyou)
If so,
Well, I didn't so...
do you concede the possibility that people who grew up in Muslim/Hindu/Taoist societies might define "basic, most fundamental human rights" differently than you?
I don't have to concede shit because to me it is a given. Someone in another culture might think it ok to chop a little girl's genitalia, but that doesn't mean that child's right to not be mutilated is not universal as in it-fucking-exists-whether-you-accept-it-or-not. You don't debate if 2+2 = 4, or that raping is bad even if there is an entire culture out there that rape people daily while chanting 2+2=5.
You are just simply looking for a strawman to fight and proclaim victory.
If not, why do you believe that these "basic, fundamental human rights" are universal in nature, but NOT recognized the world over as "basic, fundamental human rights"?
They are universal because they apply to all individuals regardless of age, gender, sexual preference, religion or lack thereof, political affiliation or lack thereof, and so on and so on. Just because a culture says "these rights don't apply to so and so" does not make them so. If that were the case, then we are forced to conclude that women, universally, have a fundamental right to be treated equal just because some cultures do not accept that as a fact.
Do you believe that different people might think different things are ethical?
I don't have to believe it. I know it. It doesn't matter. When you distill their differences, you find commonalities shared by the majority of cultures (don't rape, don't steal and so on.) And by "shared", I mean "acknowledge" in some way or another. That there is institutional violations of those rights (even in cultures that some type of written or verbal tradition of acknowledging them) is inconsequential. That is just breaking some form of law or having a subjective, partial application of some form of law.
That is the thing about a right that is universal to all humans. It means shit to its nature as a right if entire cultures decide to ignore it.
Belief In Evolution Doesn't Measure Science Literacy
For starters, there is no more "belief" in evolution as there is a "belief" that 2+2 = 4. A more important statement would have been the following: Belief in Creationism Measure Science Illiteracy.
Someone would be very hard pressed to show me with actual data that this is not true in the general case.
And because you know what PRND means, you are literate in how an automobile works.
That's what subject matter experts are for. One might know what PRND means without knowing how to design an actuator (or viceversa) without compromising one's ability to reason, to follow the scientific method, and most importantly, listen to subject matter experts on areas beyond one's schooling.
As I read it, some people let their religious beliefs trump the answers to questions about their scientific literacy. I don't think means they're less committed to the scientific method, just that they're more committed to something else (or want to appear that they're more committed).
I dunno. To me scientific literacy implies a certain commitment to scientific methods. The opposite of this would be like saying an person understand arithmetic while not being committed to accept 2+2 = 4 as a fact, or that a person is ethical while not subscribing at the very least to the basic, most fundamental human rights.
Literacy or competency on something implies some very strong commitments on that something.
Belief In Evolution Doesn't Measure Science Literacy
For starters, there is no more "belief" in evolution as there is a "belief" that 2+2 = 4. A more important statement would have been the following: Belief in Creationism Measure Science Illiteracy.
Someone would be very hard pressed to show me with actual data that this is not true in the general case.
No idea, but the summary mentions PCI a number of times, so at least you know you can still use your old PCI cards with it. No idea if it supports AGP though.
PCI means PCI-Compliance, in the most regard, it is VERY strict but 95% of dealers refuse to follow it's laws and conduct.
Whooosh. That was the sound of you failing joke compliance. The article never explains what PCI is, so to the average reader it could be Peripheral Component Interconnect, the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, the Pharmacy Council of India or maybe, just maybe Payment Card Industry.
The title "Hacking POS" should give a hint to the intended audience who would (or dare I say should) not confuse POS (Point-of-Sale) with you know what.
Hacking, in particular when discussed on a news-for-nerds site, should evoke the notion of a broad topic known as "computer security". That should lead the intended average reader (or one with google-fu skills) to know (or find) that POS stands for Point-of-Sale. 2+2=4 and the intended average reader (or one with sufficient technical acumen, like the ones that supposedly visit this site), to find out what PCI means in this context.
PCI in this context should be spelled when discussed to, I dunno, someone's grandma. It should not be so to people who are in tech. A quick google on hack POS PCI should provide enough clue...
Or maybe your post was a joke, and my internet sarcasm'o'meter is broken or something.
The key elements in human thinking are not numbers but labels of fuzzy sets. -- L. Zadeh
