Slashdot Mirror

tried it on Google Maps. If you enter "0, 0" it takes you to the North Pole. There are a couple of Comex drilling rigs there

Protips, the North Pole is "90, 0"

If you zoom out, you'd find that "0, 0" is a little bit further away from the Arctic circle. (And your drilling rigs appear to be humorously mis-located north-american paint stores; Certainly on-topic, as garbage location data goes though : )

tried it on Google Maps. If you enter "0, 0" it takes you to the North Pole. There are a couple of Comex drilling rigs there

Protips, the North Pole is "90, 0"

If you zoom out, you'd find that "0, 0" is a little bit further away from the Arctic circle. (And your drilling rigs appear to be humorously mis-located north-american paint stores; Certainly on-topic, as garbage location data goes though : )

tried it on Google Maps. If you enter "0, 0" it takes you to the North Pole. There are a couple of Comex drilling rigs there

Protips, the North Pole is "90, 0"

If you zoom out, you'd find that "0, 0" is a little bit further away from the Arctic circle. (And your drilling rigs appear to be humorously mis-located north-american paint stores; Certainly on-topic, as garbage location data goes though : )

Odd. I put coordinates into google maps all the time and it works fine if I just put "lat,lon".

And if I put "0,0" -- it takes me to a point in the Atlantic ocean where latitude and longitude are zero, what I'd expect.

Looks like google didn't add a fake island there, however -- but though the ocean does seem to be either less deep or more deep in the general area than the area around it.

doesn't Google have millisecond backups... wondering if his lost data could be restored from one of those.

Almost certainly it could, but just try getting the support number to the engineer who could do it. For being such a high-tech company, their contact page is remarkably bereft of any way to, you know, actually contact someone who works there.

Hire a lawyer to write a (polite but firm) letter requesting that someone at Google contact his client regarding the loss of some of his intellectual property stored by Google. Have the lawyer's office (with its return address) mail it (postal mail) to Google HQ, attention: legal department. If you want, send a carbon copy to your local TV station's "human interest" department -- "years of a local artist's work destroyed by cold, corporate monolith Google" is exactly the kind of story they eat up, and a news crew calling Google's PR department for a comment may get the right attention even if Google Legal doesn't respond.

Analog

How the heck do you even back up a site like that?

Hmmm, maybe using a web page scraper tool like HTTrack or perhaps the built-in export/backup function on the blog site...

Perhaps Google has a help page that describes how to do this... Nah, that would be too easy....

https://support.google.com/blo...

http://techproblems.org/how-to...

If both his blog and his e-mail have stopped working, it sounds to me like his entire account has been shut down. AFAIK, that's only done in cases of pretty egregious abuse... kiddie porn and the like. It's possible he didn't do the abuse, though, so he should contact Google to go through the account recovery process. This seems like a good place to start, then click "Another error or problem".

https://www.google.com/contact... That was really hard, took 0.67 seconds.

https://support.google.com/blo...

"Quote"Check your email to see if you got a message from support@blogger.com. If your blog was deleted by Google, the email will explain what happened."End Quote"

didn't the author/blog owner of this do any kinda research? why is this story on slashdot really....

reduce taxes on the rich

The United States flat-income-tax rate would be 30% (29.97%, 2013). I picked an arbitrary rule about not having the top tax bracket more than 4/3 the ETR, because that's basically a low-risk proposition for any changes. There are financial arguments about attracting rich people to settle their taxable income here so we can leverage the financial position this provides, and a few other things; I'm most interested in macroeconomics and, while I can competently discuss the financial considerations relevant for an individual, a government, or an economy, I find long-term economic policy is best tuned to the macroeconomic concepts revolving around scarcity and technical progress--the things that actually make your nation richer.

So about that.

There's this philosophical war going on whereby one side takes a position and another side must take the exact opposite position; tangentially, there's also a deceptive political practice of picking an arbitrary middle position and claiming extremes are broken and thus any centrist stance is vastly-superior and optimal. All this means you have a bunch of people who want to tax 65% or 85% of the rich people's money (with no plan on how that's going to help, or what to do about everyone else); you have a bunch of people who want to give *enormous* tax cuts to the rich (talking about how their money will then magically trickle down); and you have a few opportunists whose main thrust is that each side is wrong because they're wrong.

I set my arbitrary bound the way I did because it gives me a good guide to make policy. I've got a policy on hand (this is unfinished and requires a *hell* of a lot of explanation) that greatly improves the financial position of low- and middle-class families while minimally impacting the high-income earners, reducing business income taxes, and sharply reducing payroll taxes. The two big impacts here are the reduced effective income taxes on the consumer class (more take-home, more buying power) and the reduced payroll taxes (your $20/hr wage costs your employer less, but doesn't pay you any less), both of which increase the consumer's ability to buy, thus stabilizing the job market and outright creating more jobs. I managed this without pulling big tax numbers up top.

Around median, there's a blunt $8,000-per-household increase in take-home pay. That represents some $400 billion per year, while the negative income impact on the top 0.1% is around $23 billion. The tax increase in the upper end comes from me trying to fix our currently-broken tax brackets: at $75k, a married couple is paying 31%, at $151k 34%, and at $230k they're paying 39.25%; then, suddenly, they drop to 33%. For a single individual, this is $37k/31%, $91k/34%, and then at $118k it drop to 28%. Those American adults who are 25-30 years old and not married? If they're not making minimum wage, their marginal tax rate is jacked up higher than what people making $7,200 paychecks every other Friday are paying!

So here's the point: I can actually control the excessive top-end taxes by knocking $23 billion out of the huge tax advantage, which would knock about $38 out of the middle-class American household's hands each month, coming off an $8,000 boost. That still means computer programmers making $85k salaries have around $17k more coming into their pockets; it just avoids suddenly grabbing $130,000 more taxes out of the hands of someone making $10,000,000 (which is just bad politics).

Where does that get us?

This policy's delta imposes no penalty on the rich; businesses end up paying lower taxes; payroll taxes decrease, meaning the cost of employing a human being is lower; the income taxes employees pay decreases, which means a lot of things (you can pay the same and they can buy more

Why just Imagine the outrage if Hillary Clinton's "mentor" was Senator Byrd, a KKK leader. Oh, wait. That Happened.

"Trump is RACIST! LISTEN AND BELIEVE!" -- Protip: If you want to know more about the Dixiecrats and how the Republicans destroyed Racism in the south watch Hillary's America.

How can you tell a politician is lying? Their lips are moving.

That is why we should elect Jeff Dunham President of the United States.

Walter can run for Vice President. Plenty of precedent for having a dummy for VP.

Its easy. The best American example is convoluting insulting exaggerating Donald Trump. He has called his opponents liers, crazy, and moreover, will not produce any facts, like his financial status. For example, does he owe money to the IRS, or to the electricians, plumbers. and other tradespeople who are or have sued him for non payment? I would say that DT is morally and financially bancrupt, and needs to win the presidency in order to avoid the truth and facts from being divulged. And just read body language. What you are watching most are his hands, not his face. Yes, completely ignoring facts and exaggerating or distorting facts is what we see from the man.

You really don't understand the concept of Senescence nor cellular aging do you ? ;-)

... show that I missed last night...because I have to work when they choose to air their show!

If that's the case, why not just use the app or even website to watch it?

> Also... what did an Apple II do if you had two adjacent bytes... one with the msb set, one with the msb clear, and set the rightmost pixel/bit of the first byte, and the leftmost pixel/bit (bit 0) of the second byte?

FTFY. bit 0 is the leftmost bit, not 6. Remember the Apple displays bits in reversed order. :-)

Anyways, if you follow comp.sys.apple2.programmer then it is trivial to try this with Michael's HGR byte inspector:
* https://github.com/Michaelange...

Ctrl I
Ctrl J
Shift 7
Shift 8
L
Shift 1

Or you can do this manually:

HGR
CALL-151
2400:C0 01
2800:C0 01
3400:00 C0 01
3800:00 C0 01

> Did it make white, because you had two adjacent on pixels,

Yes and No.

Yes, as two adjacent bits always make white BUT ...

No, as due to the Apple's video generator and the Monitor's NTSC composite signal conversion it ALSO depends if the first byte was on an even or odd address line ...

> or did the fact that one was a blue or red pixel, and one was a green or purple pixel, make a difference? ... which determines how the leading and trailing edges of the pixels are colorized.

2000:C0 00
2C00:00 01
3000:00 C0 00
3C00:00 00 01

Adjacent pixels on an even address:

* leading edge is colorized blue, half pixel
* trailing edge is colorized green, full pixel

Adjacent pixels on an odd address:

* leading edge is colorized orange, half pixel
* trailing edge is colorized purple, full pixel

You can test this via:

2080:C0 00 01 C0 00 01
2480:C0 00 01 C0 00 01
2880:C0 00 01 C0 00 01
2C80:C0 00 01 C0 00 01

NOTE: Apple emulators (with poor NTSC code) won't colorize the pixels properly. They will show it as just white, but on real hardware you'll see:

[color][white][color]

How can you tell a politician is lying? Their lips are moving.

That is why we should elect Jeff Dunham President of the United States.

Walter can run for Vice President. Plenty of precedent for having a dummy for VP.

The problem being nobody actually understood what 'full access' through Google's API actually does, or bothered to go look it up.

RTFM kids, you'll look a lot less stupid.

What is the "FM"?

I see a lot of google OAUTH scopes listed at https://developers.google.com/.... I don't think there is a "FM" which tells us how to map the poorly-phrased UI dialog to the actual OAUTH scopes. If the UI claims to be asking for "full access", which of those scopes do you think it's asking for? All of them? Including the scope "https://www.googleapis.com/auth/gmail.modify"?

I've not used Google OAUTH, but I have used Microsoft OAUTH where the scopes had very badly worded UIs, and I bet the same is true of Google.

For instance, if your app requests the Microsoft scope "wl.signin | wl.offline_access" then all it technically does is let your app use a Microsoft ID to sign into the app but without giving even one iota of access to any of your account information. However the way it's presented to the user is "This app wants to sign you in automatically and access your info anytime". My users (reasonably) thought this meant that my app could access any of their account details anytime, and a portion of them declined to grant permission.

In this Microsoft case I don't think anyone was being stupid, and no one should be expected to RTFM, and the fault lies squarely with the folks who design the UI for the Microsoft signin process. My hunch is that the same is true of Google's OAUTH too.

It was almost certainly the Q4 projected revenue beat facilitated by the huge layoffs -- Seagate's trading range today was 23.94 - 24.33, but it was at 27.23 at the close of after hours trading.

https://www.google.com/search?...

Conservative and Liberal is orthogonal to libertarian vs authoritarian. Both parties have tendencies for authoritarianism vs libertarianism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
or
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

And to give you an idea where each candidate in the current US presidential election resides:

https://www.politicalcompass.o...

Oh wait you can

http://www.alienware.com/

Not for you ? Oh if only there were someplace that would let you pick your components and they would build the PC for you

https://www.google.com/search?...

Tooo hard to figure out what you need ? If only there were a guide of some kind

http://www.tomshardware.com/

http://www.hardocp.com/

San Diego has a population of ~1.3 million but has a rate a third that of San Antonio (~1.4 million), why?

Why does Philadelphia have a rate twice that of Las Vegas? And that when Vegas has a rate 2.5x that of San Diego?

I think the answer to that is obvious... ;)

Peer-reviewed scientific research strongly supports a shift to a vegan diet if health is a concern, and this knowledge is nothing new. The list of references below took me 5 minutes to compile, and could be expanded to thousands of papers by simply following the wake of papers published following every new large-scale clinical study of the link between diet and health. All point to meat consumption and processed foods as the cause of the health crisis faced in developing countries, and an increased intake of whole fruits and vegetables as a path of treatment.

M L McCullough. Diet patterns and mortality: common threads and consistent results. J Nutr. 2014 Jun;144(6):795-6.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24717365

M A Martinez-Gonzalez, A Sanchez-Tainta, D Corella, J Salas-Salvado, E Ros, F Aros, E Gomez-Gracia, M Fiol, R M Lamuela-Raventos, H Schroder, J Lapetra, L Serra-Majem, X Pinto, V Ruiz-Gutierrez, Ramon Estruch for the PREDIMED Group. A provegetarian food pattern and reduction in total mortality in the Prevención con Dieta Mediterránea (PREDIMED) study. Am J Clin Nutr. 2014 May 28;100(Supplement 1):320S-328S.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24871477

J Reedy, S M Krebs-Smith, P E Miller, A D Liese, L L Kahle, Y Park, A F Subar. Higher diet quality is associated with decreased risk of all-cause, cardiovascular disease, and cancer mortality among older adults. J Nutr. 2014 Jun;144(6):881-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24572039

G E Fraser, D J Shavlik. Ten years of life: Is it a matter of choice? Arch Intern Med. 2001 Jul 9;161(13):1645-52.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11434797

Large scale, long-term studies:
PREDIMED Studies: http://www.predimed.es/publica...
The Adventist Health Studies: https://publichealth.llu.edu/a...
The China Studies: https://scholar.google.com/sch...
The Nurses Health Study: http://www.nurseshealthstudy.o...
The EPIC Study: http://epic.iarc.fr/

After The New York Times published an account [late in 2012] of a horrific rape against Alayna Macaluso in Steubenville, Ohio, an online vigilante campaign was started...the campaign targeted local officials who the vigilantes felt weren't prosecuting the rape investigation seriously because the alleged perpetrators were high school football players

In 2016, the vigilantes would have been given an imprimatur to destroy the town, as exemplified by the recent Stanford case.
The prevailing attitude at Stanford is that disputed consent only favors the woman, and that Turner's hometown must be made to pay for his actions.

If it was at a prestigious university, they'd not even need a rape case to destroy the person. Washington & Lee used Title IX to wreck someone's life.
The worst parts of it are that no crime occurred, that due process wasn't served, and that there was no legal charge - just straight intimidation.

In the vast majority of cases, I certainly agree. However, there are some instances where -- at least in a very narrow sense -- "big business" has more-or-less similar interests as the consumer. As an example, Netflix and Google both have seemingly reasonable stances on internet openness (at least in the USA). Whether you want to look at this as big business doing The Right Thing or as big business looking to lower their costs to increase their bottom line is up to you.

I almost* feel sorry for the telcos; they're sort of a necessary evil in that they don't offer anything other than a means to an end -- a required but largely thankless service. Netflix has movies, I want to watch them, and the fact that they have to go over a series of tubes to get to me isn't something I really care about or even notice, unless it doesn't work flawlessly.

*Well...actually not at all.

The pound is at a recent low, but that's not a bad thing. It means more people will purchase UK goods and services than they normally wood. The UK will have a more favorable trade deficit, possibly even a trade surplus, which means money will flow into the country from abroad.

Not necessarily, except in the long-term. It depends on the price elasticities for imports and exports and on people's willingness and ability to substitute domestic products for imported ones. Many of the things the UK exports depend on imports of component parts, so do not benefit that much from currency movements.

One way that Greece could have eased their troubles was by floating their currency. They *asked* the EU for permission to do this, and were denied.

Are you saying that the UK should be *prevented* from floating their currency if they deem it necessary? I don't see that as a bad thing.

Can you explain?

Greece does not currently have its own currency, so there was nothing for them to ask to 'float'. They could have left the Euro, which would have meant creating a new currency. The UK has had a fully floating currency since it crashed out of the ERM in 1992, the BoE does not usually intervene in the FX market and the EU has never attempted to make it do so. The UK had a permanent opt-out from the Euro and could never be forced to join. Do you actually understand the UK's economy as well as you think you do?

Companies relocating to the EU are European companies... yes? And those European companies employ mostly non-UK workers, yes? And pay taxes to their parent country, yes?

So I don't see *that* as a problem either.

Can you explain?

No they aren't just European companies. Many are multinationals, who set up in the UK because they wanted a UK base. Others are UK companies, but they now do much of their business in the EU. No, they don't employ "mostly non-UK workers", and yes they all pay tax in the UK if they are profitable. Again, I'm not sure you actually understand how the EU works.

And also note that Iceland hammered out a trade treaty with China in about a year, while the EU has been working on a similar treaty for over 20 years.

How difficult it is to sign a trade deal depends on how complicated it is. Iceland has a tiny population with a relatively simple economy that doesn't present many conflicts. The UK has 200 times as many people as Iceland and a much more complicated economy.

It's bad for people who do arbitrage ("the pound has dropped"), it's bad for EU companies ("they're moving away"), and it's bad for the EU economy ("UK was the 2nd largest contributor").

The fall in the value of the pound reflects declining expectations for UK growth and interest rates, which are now expected to be crap for the foreseeable future. EU companies moving away is bad for the people who used to work for them, for people who worked for suppliers of those companies, and for the loss of tax revenue. The UK was the 2nd largest contributor to the EU budget, because it is one of the larger countries with a per-capita income significantly above average.

UK business will suffer significantly from the loss of the single market, UK nationals will suffer from loss of freedom of movement and it's hard to find anyone who will actually benefit from this nonsense.

The currency has already crashed, the stock market lost 140 billion pounds, and many major companies are now preparing for partial or complete relocations in order to stay within the EU. The main thing holding companies back is the possibility that the UK might agree to remain bound by the EU's rules and thus stay within the EU common market, thus rendering relocation unnecessary - expect a further crash if the UK doesn't remain in the common market. S&P has already slashed their growth forecast for the UK, and the UK has lost its AAA credit status.

The pound is at a recent low, but that's not a bad thing. It means more people will purchase UK goods and services than they normally wood. The UK will have a more favorable trade deficit, possibly even a trade surplus, which means money will flow into the country from abroad.

If it *were* a bad thing, then you'd be complaining about how from 2 two years ago up to the brexit, the pound lost 20% of its value. Why is it that the pound losing it's value after the vote is catastrophic, in your view, while losing 20% over 2 years isn't?

Can you explain?

One way that Greece could have eased their troubles was by floating their currency. They *asked* the EU for permission to do this, and were denied.

Are you saying that the UK should be *prevented* from floating their currency if they deem it necessary? I don't see that as a bad thing.

Can you explain?

(So long as inflation is kept under control. South American dictatorships devalue their currency by printing extra money, which makes their currency value go to shit. I don't see the UK regulators being stupid enough or corrupt enough to do that.)

Companies relocating to the EU are European companies... yes? And those European companies employ mostly non-UK workers, yes? And pay taxes to their parent country, yes?

So I don't see *that* as a problem either.

Can you explain?

And note that the EU growth rate has been going down, overall, in the last few years (and not because of the recession either).

Are you saying that remaining a part of a declining or stagnant union is a *good* thing for the UK?

Please explain.

And also note that Iceland hammered out a trade treaty with China in about a year, while the EU has been working on a similar treaty for over 20 years.

I'm really unclear why you think all this is bad. It's bad for people who do arbitrage ("the pound has dropped"), it's bad for EU companies ("they're moving away"), and it's bad for the EU economy ("UK was the 2nd largest contributor").

But I don't see it as bad for the UK people.

Care to explain?

Obligatory first search result, y'lazy bastard. Here's the same statement in book form.

and friends who've experienced it. So first hand. But here's a Google Search where you'll find all the stats you care for.

Facebook is a private company.

No, they are not. Even ignoring commonly recognized and respected social responsibilities, they are, at the very least, responsible to their shareholders (the public).

Facebook can do whatever it wants, and allow whatever it wants to be shown on its site.

Also not true. They must obey the law, same as anyone else.

Reality is nuanced and multi-faceted, and sweeping generalizations are rarely insightful and usually don't add much to a discussion.

The reason this matters has little to do with what Facebook is allowed to do, and much more to do with what they should do. For better or worse (hint: worse), Facebook has become "the Internet" to billions of people. Anytime you have such broad influence over so many, morals and good stewardship become much more important.

It's really worth keeping a precise distinction in mind when talking about Google and privacy:

Google is clearly hell-bent on being as much of an Orwellian data overlord as possible; so trusting them to design products in such a way that they don't tend to leak data to Google during the course of routine use is foolish.

However, Google's approach to gathering alarming amounts of data is usually to make themselves attractive enough that they get invited in to the system(eg. gmail, google voice, 'free' google analytics for website operators, 'benevolently' hosting common javascript libraries so that you can save yourself bandwidth at the minor cost of inserting Google into every page load, that sort of thing.) They get the target to 'agree'(certainly they'll exploit ignorance and product tie-ins to do this, they are hardly committed to some idealistic vision of contracts between fully informed equals); rather than compromising the target's security and malwareing the data out. Presumably this is both because that would probably open them to legal exposure; and because an "insecurity and hacks" data collection mechanism would open the field to Google competitors who would do none of the work but get the same data just by compromising the system.

Because of this; Google actually tends to be pretty respectable in terms of design and implementation; sometimes even notably superior, in terms of quality of implementation and resistance to unauthorized 3rd parties. Chrome routinely scores very well in browser security comparisons, ChromeOS is also quite solid; Android usually doesn't turn into a dumpster fire until 3rd parties get involved, Gmail is better than an alarming number of sites about support for 2 factor authentication, and so on. It's just that all their products and services are designed to put them 'in the loop' by default and if you want everything to work smoothly, so that they have no need to compromise the system; because they are a trusted part of it.

If given the choice between a design where there is no need for anything to talk to the mothership and a design that relies on a Google account and being logged into Chrome and so on; they'll choose the latter every time; but when they set out to keep unauthorized parties out; they usually mean it, though they work to ensure that they are not 'unauthorized parties' in as many real world use cases as they can.

Basically, it says:
Link to Google Translate

(Had to do the Google translate link because slashcode borked it if I tried to put Russian text in.)

Auto means self. Pilot means pilot. If you call something an autopilot it must pilot itself.

I agree with your premise, but just to nit here, "auto" is short for "automatic", which means working by itself with little or no direct human control. So technically autopilot means piloting with little or no direct human control.

Probably of more concern for this (or use!): https://atap.google.com/soli/ Don't even need any electronics on the person.

A regular skateboard doesn't have the very real possibility of burning down your house. house

My wife likes her iPod and iPad mini; but in both cases we're hitting issues not generally hardware issues but software issues - they can't get upgraded beyond certain versions, and apps, etc are starting to not be available on them so they're coming to be SOL despite being perfectly usable.

Name ANY tech device for which that ISN'T the case. "Support" and "Upgrades" have a lifespan. Apple is almost always near, or at, the top as far as that goes. Time does move on. but it doesn't mean the device, the OS, or the Apps on it magically stop working, does it?, next!

My wife's first (second?) gen iPod Touch. Upgrades only go though I think iOS4. Her iPad Mini I think is only getting upgrades through iOS8.

Of course the key in there is "lifespan" - and the "lifespan" defined by Apple may not be what it is defined by its users. These are still perfectly good devices.

Apple refuses to replace the glass

You mean "under warranty"? Or do you mean "They want to replace the entire Digitizer, when YOU think its just the "glass" that is broken"? Or do you mean "They refuse to even repair it at all at any price"?

Only the glass is broken; and yes we took it to an Apple Store and they said they won't fix it. I doubt warranty had anything to do with it; they would have been happy to give her a discount on a new device if she turned it in, but that was it. So yes, Apple refused to fix it for "any price".

And of course, your statement "it's difficult to find a third-party vendor to do it" exposes you for being either a bald-faced liar (more likely) or a complete idiot. Heck, if you're not a complete klutz, you can even do it yourself (which I think was the whole point of TFA) iFixit even has some nice step-by-step guides, what more could you want?

I've advised her of several vendors that claim to do it; but she has yet to take it in. I'm not saying it can't be fixed - it most certainly can. My point was regarding Apple's service, not third party vendor service.

AFAIK, many new cars already do this, and they have even more rudimentary "AI" than the Teslas.
Lazy sourcing: https://www.google.com/search?...

Intel...although I'd guess money strained AMD is no better. With regards to Intel & backdoors in its chips its good to remember what we know:

http://www.infowars.com/intel-...

And don't forget what that guy at Google mentioned WRT Intel:

https://plus.google.com/+Theod...

Of course this makes all our systems vulnerable to attack by foreigners as well, but the NSA seems comfortable with that world - the country they're supposed to protect is compromised by design as long as they can spy on everyone they're okay with foreign governments being able to do that too. I would expect Microsoft's Visual Studio to be compromised by design as well.

Actually you should seek out Kennedy and Johnson. They got the US into Vietnam and before anyone posts how Kennedy would have gotten us out of Vietnam the facts are that at no time during the Kennedy administration did the number of US military in Vietnam go down. Nixon got the US out of Vietnam and as far as I know Reagan Except for some small actions did not start a war killing brown people as you put it.
https://www.google.com/imgres?...

If you take a look yes Nixon and congress made massive cuts after Apollo because of the cost of the Vietnam war started by Kennedy and Johnson but it was still higher then Clinton and Obama. Reagan's funding level was also higher than Obama. Why the venom for those people?
 

Honda patented this type of tire for an omniwheel in 2008: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8342270B2/en. In particular check out figure 3.

The roller setup is different here, but the Honda one seems more practical.

When stuck at one problem it is of no use to focus. Better do something different, so your brain stops going in circles.

Ever had trouble solving a problem, took a break and did something completely different, like take a shower, and *bam* the answer popped into your head while you washed your hair? Left/Right Brain Switch. I am *not* a doctor or scientist, but here's my take on this:

By taking a break and focusing on something else, you are fostering a left to right brain switch. In most people, the Left Brain is dominate and, basically, likes to be in charge. However, it usually tries to solve problems in a linear fashion, using concrete thinking. This doesn't always work. The Right Brain problem solves differently, in a more creative fashion, using more abstract thinking. However, when the Right Brain tries to help out, the Left Brain says, "shut up I'm thinking." Taking a break gives the Left Brain something else to focus on and allows the Right Brain time to work and slip the answer under the Left Brain's door.

For more about general Left/Right Brain stuff, see:

• The Truth About The Left Brain / Right Brain Relationship
• Book: Drawing on the Right Side Brain
• Google: left right brain (switch|shift)

No. Really.

Compare it to "Brexit".

https://www.google.com/trends/...

And you can see VR porn is tiny.

https://www.google.com/trends/...

It's just having a high relative increase from an essentially zero base.

A recent slashdot reply caught my eye, because it succinctly sums up the situation in the UK.

In her department, which requires high-end medically-skilled professionals, her boss posted after Brexit. The basic gist was "Don't worry, everyone, your cancer diagnosis will still be safe in the hands of our department consisting almost entirely of Spanish, Italian, German, French, Polish, Greek, ...... personnel for the time being".

The important part of this post is that the jobs in this lab are denied to UK citizens due to globalism.

Of course, proponents of globalism will tell us that the UK citizens can easily move to Greece and get an equivalent job.

It could happen - right?

Globalism was sold to us as a way to increase our standard of living. It was well known that salaries would stagnate, but (we were told) the lower prices on imported goods would more than make up for the difference.

In hindsight, we see that salaries did stagnate, and also unemployment went up while per-capita gdp about doubled.

Globalism is good for a handful few people, while it has driven half the workforce to the brink of poverty.

The economic rationale says that the economy is doing great (which it is, actually) and ignores the dissatisfaction of millions of citizens as valueless.

Why should *any* country sacrifice the welfare of its citizens for the benefit of people in other countries?

If want to argue globalism, please include the analysis that indicates why having 75 million households on the brink of poverty and 10% unemployment is a good thing.

It's the difference between a rationalization and actual evidence.

You realize that your salary is pretty much the same if you work on one side of Lake Washington or the other at a given company... right?

You realize that I've been talking about cheaper land, not cheaper workers?

I could have, yes, but I wasn't.

More so, I'm sure all have done the math, just as how many Silicon Valley or San Francisco based company has as to if they would be better off relocating to... Detroit (cheap land and homes, and a police force needing some subsidizing, etc).

Ah, you've heard of that plan!

That problem exists anywhere. All a tech reporter has to do is know where some employees from this company or that eat lunch and sit near... as alas far too many talk shop, even in public with each other.

You've quite convinced me, we must not only keep them from the public, we must force them to have separate mental identities!

It's the only way to be safe.

I found cherrytree on the Ubuntu repository, and have been using it to good effect for quite some time. It is hierarchical and very flexible.

I see it is cross-platform, so you could keep your note document on a cloud platform like Google Drive and access it from any computer you're logged into. It doesn't have a web version or Android/iOS/Chrome App version, so no mobile device use.

On my Android phone, I use ColorNote. Regular notes and checklists work nicely there.

If it's patented, and the patent is owned by a company attempting to monopolize a section of the food industry, then I don't trust it. I'm quite willing to phrase my doubts in any way that is publicly acceptable, including claims of lack of safety that I wouldn't normally accept, because I don't trust it for other reasons.

That said, the poster child of GMO, golden rice, doesn't seem to be working out. It doesn't seem to grow well. The only ones that grow well are the ones that do things like encourage excess use of poisons. (I know that's not how they claim it should be used, but that's how it gets used in practice.) I don't know that the various poisons are somehow denatured before it gets to me, so I'm dubious, and I have no ready way of testing. Perhaps, to pick one example, glyphosate is harmless ( https://www.google.com/search?... ) or the amount that actually ends up in the food is harmless. I'd rather just avoid the problem. Bt is probably harmless, but when plants are modified to generate it in every cell, then it's a danger that wasn't present when it was just dusted over the plants. Etc. In every particular case the chance of it really being harmful is trivial, but there are a HUGE number of cases. And the probabilities add rather than multiply.

As for "evidence be damned", who ran the tests, and how certain are you that you saw ALL the results. It's quite frequent for experimental results that produce an undesired result to be suppressed. A quick perusal of the list of specialties of the signatories did not convince me. I remember Linus Pauling and Vitamin-C. There were many signers who listed Medicine as their area of competence, but that's quite a broad area. I'd be more convinced if some of them listed bio-chemistry, but that was probably too complex for the compilers of the list. Any signer that listed Physics can be safely ignored. There were a lot of signers whose specialty was in Chemistry or Medicine, but those are such wide areas that I have no real reason to believe their opinion is worth more than mine. I could look up each one in turn and find out whether their area of expertise was such that I should pay attention to it, but that's a long list. And after I found those with significant areas of expertise, I'd need to research who they worked for and who funded any grants they might have either received or potentially receive. It's quite unfortunate, but believing in the honesty of people has taken a real beating over the last decade.

P.S.: The second paragraph is all about uncertainty, and valid reasons for having it. My real reasons, however, have more to do with monopoly power.

Whatever happened to the simple principle of labeling things?

Vermont passed a GMO Labeling Law that went into effect July 1, 2016. As NPR noted, since most food companies can't (read: won't) practically make different labels for different states, the effects of this law will cover national food labels.

Now... The US Congress, pushed by AG companies, is voting on a bill next week to (basically) preempt this law:

This bill would delay labeling for up to two years while the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture develops rules for the labeling of genetically engineered foods. The Secretary would be charged with developing three options of disclosure including a plain language label, a symbol, and electronic or digital links accompanied by the wording “scan here for more food information”.

[Not sure a QR code instead of words would be that helpful while grocery shopping.]

More links at: http://www.google.com/search?q=vermont+gmo+labeling+law

Omnidirectional wheels are not new (1949 german parent).

What is probably new here is that the wheel surface is not a discontinuous set of smaller wheels - it's a toroidal tire that can rotate on the in-out axis. This requires the surface to stretch considerably and is probably not compatible with the requirements for car tires. This has real applications, but standard passenger cars are probably not one of them. This car demo is, however, a great way to attract attention and, hopefully, investment. A forklift just doesn't have the same dramatic effect.