Slashdot Mirror

Whether it is Trump or Obama, but either way, currently jobless rates in the US are very low.

It's just so frustrating that people are so easily distracted from the real problem. All I see is hand-wringing about solving the wrong problem:

Do we need a basic living income?
Maybe, but you're getting distracted. This is a complicated solution to a simple problem.

Minimum living wage?
Again, distracted by trying to give just a little bit more to a lot of people.

More education? Will that fix it?
Of course not. How ever much education we subsidize, the rich will always pay for their kids to be in more exclusive schools for longer. But we just lost focus dealing with the issue...

How about racial eqality? BLM?
Maybe, but again, you're getting distracted. It's not the color of your skin that's got you downtrodden. It's that you're poor. There's nothing worse than identity politics to get people barking up the wrong tree.

***This is the problem***, and it's easy to solve.
WE NEED TO START BY TAKING A VERY LARGE AMOUNT OF WEALTH FROM A VERY SMALL NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS!!! With firebrands and pitchforks if necessary.

All this hogwash about tariffs and trade deals, subsidies, creating jobs, blah blah blah... It's all just to keep our attention occupied while very froth on top of the "cream" of society is bending us all over.

Here are some links as to why having too large of an ego is a bad thing:

https://www.google.com.tw/amp/...

http://madamenoire.com/420569/... (there is a picture of Adam Sandler in this one. Quite funny)

https://www.powerofpositivity....

You should probably think on this. The links show having a too large ego can lead to a lot of issues both with oneself and the people surrounding a person.

You can't drill through the mesh. There are some picture on the page here https://www.google.com.tw/sear... The secure controller is designed to prevent drill, die opening and other temperature attacks. Side channel protection is also included. So you will need to sharpen your pencil to find a way in. We also target FIPS 140-2 certification and it will be verified by third parties... A lot more details on the security features here; https://www.crowdsupply.com/de... HDMI and USB data are obviously accessible from the external. We recommend using QUBES OS to isolate peripherals and processes...

Domestic cattle really destructive of the watershed and have a large negative impact on water quality.

Not so fast... There is a growing awareness that well managed herbivores are the only way to reverse desertification and halt climate change. The key to this counter-intuitive fact is the "well managed" part. (The link above is to a TED Talk by Allan Savory.)

If you put a hundred head of cattle on a hundred acres of pasture, and just leave them there, they will roam around, munching only the most palatable plants (leaving the weeds to thrive), endlessly compacting the soil and disturbing the ecosystem. But if you instead give those same 100-head just one acre per day to graze, they'll eat everything in sight (helping to control weeds), aerate the soil with their hooves, and fertilize it with their dung -- and not come back to the same acre for another 100 days.

This more accurately mimics the pattern found in nature, where herbivores are "mobbed up" and kept moving by predators. And it gives the land time to rest in between visits, allowing the biome to absorb the nutrients and recover from the disturbance. Just look at the before and after photos in Savory's TED Talk to see the effects of well managed herbivores.

Another great example is what Joel Salatin is doing at Polyface Farms in Virginia. (This link is a 10min clip from a talk by Michael Pollan, describing the Polyface model.)

Oh yeah, and then there's the whole "permaculture" movement, as exemplified by Geoff Lawton in his "greening the desert" project in Jordan.

In short, there are many, many options available to us, before we start talking about "going veggie" to save the planet.

You'd get more respect if you learned to write at at least the fourth-grade level. Look up "their / there / they're" and "your / you're."

You'd get more respect if you learned to write at at least the fourth-grade level. Look up "their / there / they're" and "your / you're."

Here is the complete results for traditional vs simplified:

First traditional:

Google Australia:
http://images.google.com.au/images?hl=en&source=hp&q=%E5%A4%A9%E5%AE%89%E9%96%80&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi
Google China:
http://images.google.cn/images?hl=zh-CN&source=hp&q=%E5%A4%A9%E5%AE%89%E9%96%80&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi

Simplified:

Australia
http://images.google.com.au/images?hl=en&q=%E5%A4%A9%E5%AE%89%E9%97%A8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi
China
http://images.google.cn/images?hl=zh-CN&um=1&sa=1&q=%E5%A4%A9%E5%AE%89%E9%97%A8&btnG=%E6%90%9C%E7%B4%A2%E5%9B%BE%E7%89%87

I'm guessing google is returning pages based on the language you search in. When you write tianmen in traditional characters it's ambiguous whether the language is Japanese or Chinese (Same characters, same code-points), so the results are a mix. Note the two particularly bloody pictures in the google.com.au search are from Japanese sites.

Heres a Google Taiwan search in traditional characters:
http://images.google.com.tw/images?hl=zh-TW&q=%E5%A4%A9%E5%AE%89%E9%96%80&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi&gbv=1&ei=dv0IS9SvMoyVkAWF8IisAw
As you can see some bloody images come up.

Anyway, I imagine the root of the problem is simply that there's not a lot of discussion about this amongst mainland Chinese (I.e. people who would write in simplified characters).

Finally, as for your question about Mainland Chinese being able to read both traditional and simplified characters well it depends on the character. However, educated Mainland Chinese people that I've meet have generally been able to read any Characters I could write (Me writing the Japanese versions of them, which are generally traditional characters). The inverse is also true I can recognise many characters written in their Mainland China simplified form. In the case of Tianmen, I would be amazed if they couldn't.

translated link:

http://www.google.com.tw/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chinareviewnews.com%2Fdoc%2F1006%2F4%2F3%2F1%2F100643181.html%3Fcoluid%3D45%26kindid%3D0%26docid%3D100643181%26mdate%3D0513002548&hl=zh-TW&ie=UTF8&sl=zh-CN&tl=en

yeah totally US centric

Option 1: Google provides a censored Google News China site; the real Google News site gets chinawalled. People who know how to circumvent the firewall can read normal Google News. Everyone else is left having to read the censored version.

Option 2: Google does not provide a censored Google News China site; the Google News site gets chinawalled. People who know how to circumvent the firewall can read Google News. Everyone else can't.

One could make a case that it's unconditionally unethical to do business with a fascist* regime, and option 1 is inherently unconscionable. I however would argue that from a practical standpoint, there are some instances where refusing to do business with a fascist regime would have a potential positive effect for the regime's subjects, and some instances where it would not.

This is one of the latter cases.

* You're probably going to tell me I should have used some slightly different meaningless label here. I say: Whatever.

Option 1: Google provides a censored Google News China site; the real Google News site gets chinawalled. People who know how to circumvent the firewall can read normal Google News. Everyone else is left having to read the censored version.

Option 2: Google does not provide a censored Google News China site; the Google News site gets chinawalled. People who know how to circumvent the firewall can read Google News. Everyone else can't.

One could make a case that it's unconditionally unethical to do business with a fascist* regime, and option 1 is inherently unconscionable. I however would argue that from a practical standpoint, there are some instances where refusing to do business with a fascist regime would have a potential positive effect for the regime's subjects, and some instances where it would not.

This is one of the latter cases.

* You're probably going to tell me I should have used some slightly different meaningless label here. I say: Whatever.

Both pages have links to Picassa. But not on This one!