The big problem is the gap between now and when it will be profoundly different. That will be bloody.
What's not obvious is what this has to do with treatment of depression. People do indeed look empirically at various treatments, which you don't seem to realize.
Speaking as a leftist...Slashdot isn't my echo chamber. Odds are you either have batshit insane political views (like lots of people here) or have no good idea how to express them.
C'mon, 8.1 is still the third most-used desktop OS out there, right behind 7 and XP. Something to do with sticking it on all the new computers people buy, 99% of the home users having no idea of changing the OS.
There is useful software available on Linux (and, in specific, Mint). Not all useful software runs on Linux. In order to know whether Linux is a good fit for someone, you have to know what that person wants his or her computer to do.
With a user-friendly distribution, a naive user can use email and surf the net and do word processing and play some simple games, and there's a lot of people that don't use their computers for anything more. In addition, there's repositories available for reasonably safe use, and they may have software the user likes.
Linux is well suited for a very light user, or a user who knows very well what he or she is doing. There's a big gap in between there, where Windows is the clear answer.
The issue is that data mining doesn't work for this sort of thing. There are well over a million passengers a day in the US. If you can find terrorists with an 0.1% error rate, there are a thousand false positives a day, and almost certainly no actual terrorists. There are far too few terrorists to validate any model. There are far to few for diversity, and any decision technique is going to finger people like the 9/11 terrorists, because that's almost the entire sample, and miss people who aren't very much like them.
Another issue is that it went from stopping people from hijacking planes and using them as weapons to stopping people from blowing up the aircraft they're on, which is a much smaller risk. Since air travel is so safe, taking that money and spending it on almost any other safety issue would save more lives.
The authorities should drop back to pre-9/11 security, which was adequate for what it did. The terrorists did not carry guns, but rather knives. The passengers can deal with terrorists with knives, but it's a whole lot harder to deal with guns, and pre-9/11 security forced the terrorists to count on knives. Keep the guns off and trust the passengers.
Were the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber trying to hijack their planes, or simply bring them down? There's a difference, and the passengers have limited ability to stop explosions.
I see a difference between Chernobyl and Fukushima. Fukushima was preventable, but I have no confidence that humans will in general, do much better. Chernobyl was another matter: starting with a reactor design that would never be built today, there was a series of incredibly dumb decisions that led to the catastrophe, that I think would never be repeated. I'm comfortable calling it unrepeatable.
Fukushima was not, really, that bad. It was nowhere near as destructive as the natural disaster that caused it, and although there are exclusion zones there are such zones for most power sources.
That depends on what foundational principle is wrong. Not having laws of physics vary significantly from place to place is pretty basic, and conservation of momentum follows from that. If momentum is not conserved*, every law of physics will have to be re-examined to figure out exactly how it applies.
*Yes, in fact, I do know that I'm using "space" and "momentum" here like they were real things, and that things get more complicated when considering relativity. It's still going to have an impact that big.
For a while, one of my standard questions was about the development environment. I'd ask what they did for source control, and accept any answer short of "Visual SourceSafe" or "um, what?".
I've never heard somebody complain about accumulating too much money. I have heard complaints that someone shouldn't have spent all that time at work, and should have spent more time with his family (haven't heard this from a woman, personally).
Yeah. I've been laid off with essentially no notice by a manager I knew and trusted. It was obvious that he hated what he was doing, and it didn't hurt our personal relationship (our professional one was toast, of course).
Also, know what the company does, how it makes money, and how you fit into that. You don't have to get deep into the business side, but knowing the basics will probably be well worth it.
I once had a job that gave me a recurring dream that I would finish my scale WWII armored division and it would come rescue me. I remember how the M7 self-propelled artillery fired at the cubicle walls. I stepped up my job search and got some dump trucks to build the engineering battalion.
You don't necessarily want a manager deciding these things, either. When I'm arguing with a colleague, odds are that both of us know the pros and cons of the issue much better than my manager does. I've been put in a meeting room with another guy for an hour, and eventually we came out with something we could both agree to. Worked better than having a decision come from on high.