I can't even recognize snark anymore.
I can't even recognize snark anymore.
What the fuck are you talking about? Nothing in Chrome requires a root user.
I have no idea what you're point is
Yes, I have seen every decent older movie I care to see. Every once in a while I am surprised by an old movie I missed, but it's quite rare. After a couple decades even great movies start to show their age anyway.
If you can say this with a straight face, then you are someone who:
** is too young to know what the fuck you want
** deserves to pay $50 for crap like "Paranormal Activity: The Ghost Dimension"
You mean someone else builds the indexes? Wow? Really?
The problem is that it is a shitty manager who insults any subordinate. If you have a problem with a member of your team, you take them aside and try to deal with it. If it rates disciplinary action, then so be it, but that can still be done respectfully. Either we are adults who can behave with some decorum, or we are unruly children. I won't have unruly children as managers, period. Behave appropriately or you will be demoted. Calling anyone a "fag", get into shouting matches with them, and I will be making you apologize to the persons involved and to anyone who overheard them, and do it repeatedly, and you'll be shown the door. A work place should not be a place where people with power feel some right to behave badly to other people.
1. That was just an old theory, and not a widely accepted one.
2. Given what we've just seen, it demonstrably isn't.
That doesn't mean that there aren't compounds formed at great pressure that can remain stable at moderate pressures and represent very dense energy sources - there surely are. Metastability is a very real thing. But apparently not in the case of metallic hydrogen at ~STP.
Assuming that this actually even was metallic hydrogen; even that is somewhat in dispute.
Indeed, on both counts. And in particular I like the word "rogue planet". Again you have an adjective imparting additional information about another object ("Rogue X"), "rogue" can be readily quantified ("Not in a stable orbit around any particular star or cluster of stars"), and it's a very evocative term. And rogue planets are absolutely expected according to our current models. They'll be incredibly difficult to find, but they're out there.
We're also coming to the realization that there's a lot of objects, potentially including large ones, that are only tenuously bound to our solar system. And it's likely that we readily exchange this mass with other nearby stars over cosmologic timescales; parts of our solar system (primarily distant ones) likely formed by other stars, and things that condensed during the formation of our star system are likely now orbiting other stars.
My experience from my coursework was that the cited studies seemed to me to be pretty rigorous. There was an entire section dedicated to what might have been titled "junk science", though as I recall the authors of the textbook used a somewhat more diplomatic term. In there were all kinds of commonly-held disorders like pre-menstrual syndrome, seasonal affective disorder in the like where research suggests that while the disorders may be real, they in fact effect a far smaller group of people than earlier studies had claimed. In other words, even in psychology it sure looks to me like there is at least some psychologists who follow valid methodological principles.
The other thing to remember is that "psychology" is a pretty damned broad term, and that in a lot of cases other professions like psychoanalysts, psychiatrists, counselors and the like often get lumped in, and in some cases these other groups publish in journals of varying degrees of quality. That's not to say that some of these people don't adhere to pretty strong methodologies, but it does tend to be a bit of a wild west in some cases. But when you're talking about cognitive psychology and other similar branches, there's a lot of overlap there that pulls in neurological experts, behavioral experts and the like who sit within the harder edges of the psychology field. It most certainly isn't all just kooky neo-Freudians.
Having taken a college-level psychology course (which of course makes me an expert in the field!) I can tell you that psychology isn't necessarily as soft as you think, and while there are certainly holdover schools of psychology that are based on partial or total rubbish, when you start talking about cognitive psychology and behaviorism, these are just as hard a science as physics or geology, to the point that I got the strong impression that my instructor viewed many of the other schools pretty dimly as being as much wishy-washy metaphysics as anything else. Psychology is an awfully big field, so claiming most of it is rubbish is deeply unfair.
The problem being is that the effects of CO2 aren't that hard to pin down. The skepticism is basically fake, fueled by some of the wealthiest companies and individuals on the planet, even as they themselves prepare for the low-carbon future.
Of course there has been in a lot of research on management styles, some of it predating WWII which suggested that bullying management style may bring about short-term gains, but usually at the cost of a paranoid and low-morale organization which can negatively effect long term performance.
I've only been yelled at once in my working life, and while it scared the shit out of me to be sure, the only take-away I had was that my boss was a fucking asshole. I could only work as fast as I was going, and because he was a cheap asshole, he wouldn't hire someone else to take over some of my sysadmin role so I could more coding.
I see little evidence that science is regaining ground. There has been far too concerted an effort in the last ten to fifteen years to demonize scientists, to make them out to be profiteering frauds. In the end reality will very much bring back the pro-science movement, but for now, even on Slashdot, the attitude on everything from climate change to basic research is incredibly negative.
Computing is pretty much ubiquitous nowadays. When I first got into computing back in grade school around 1981-82, computers were just this incredibly awesome thing. There was a pioneering spirit to the home computing world. I remember taking my crappy little Radio Shack computer to local meetups, and you'd have everyone from ten year olds like myself to grizzled old guys (who could actually afford cool peripherals like disk drives and the like). That persisted to some extent until the early 1990s, with the earliest versions of Linux like the original Slackware release being the swan song of an age of computing that had persisted since the mid-70s. Once the Internet really overtook the old BBS culture, that was the final nail. I blame it all on AOL!
I can remember pouring through Byte magazine back in the mid-80s and just salivating over the idea of having a modem or a double-sided floppy drive. It was just a very optimistic age. I found an old box of computer magazines from the era, and still smiled at the three page BASIC program listing for some sort of text adventure game, remembering how I built my first one based on a how-to book I'd ordered from an advertisement in the back. Good times.
The short of it, Jupiter moves things around; it's very good at scattering other bodies, even large ones. First it dragged outer populations into the inner solar system, then scattered inner solar system material out, and then on its retreat pulled outer solar system material back in. It's actually a very big deal that it did that, as it brought ice into the inner solar system.
One man's "magic" is another man's engineering. "Supernatural" is a null word. -- Robert Heinlein