Slashdot Mirror

Right, because it's not as if California is having enough drought to have a government site for it, or western canada. Or how about the oceans, where marine-life can be *very* temperature sensitive.

Or how about a change in parasites, which affects both humans and food-chain animals? The good news is that some parasites that like it cool may die out, but those that prefer warmer temperatures (the majority) will spread more readily.

because they can't comprehend making their own food

That or they can comprehend being threatened with imprisonment when city codes ban gardens.

or exercising without equipment

That depends on weather and on how strict the local police are about giving children priority on public playgrounds.

or getting around without a taxi.

What should they do instead? Ride the bus? Buses in my home town don't operate at night, on Sundays, or on major holidays. Under the "employment at will" principle widespread in the United States, employers can and do exercise their rights to fire employees for notifying them that they aren't available at those times. Many, such as Walmart, also have a "must be available on weekends" policy of refusing to hire applicants who mark down that they aren't available on Sunday.

Every job I've had in the area, $50k is what we pay people when we allow them to take the plastic protector off the sharp edge of the butter knives in the company kitchen.

Unicorn companies tend to overpay for talent, like paying kitchen workers well above minimum wage. One company spent $25,000 per employee on perks.

It's junior level pay.

Since I'm working on a government IT contract, $50K is the national average. My subcontractor has my job title as Senior System Administrator. I've been trying to getting a cost of living adjustment for $100K per year. But the contracting officer is reluctant to do so since the SF and NYC folks will want a COLA.

Or Uber-driver pay.

Uber drivers make a little more than minimum wage.

http://time.com/money/3678389/uber-drivers-wages/

I know for a fact there are homeless people in the streets bringing home more than that.

During the Great Recession, a panhandler on a particular street corner in San Francisco made $85 per hour.

Seriously dude, it might be worth reevaluating where your career is.

Seriously, dude, your apple and oranages comparisons sucks.

There is much to like about the Trump campaign if you are Russian.

Trump has promised to look into lifting the sanctions that the U.S. has imposed against Russia for its military incursions in Ukraine.

The Trump campaign worked behind the scenes to make sure the new Republican platform won’t call for giving weapons to Ukraine to fight Russian and rebel forces, contradicting the view of almost all Republican foreign policy leaders in Washington.

He questioned whether the U.S. would defend its NATO allies in the event of a Russian attack and claimed that the alliance is “obsolete.”

An isolationist America would pose less of a threat to Russia’s ambitions in Europe and the Middle East.

On top of this, Putin likely holds a grudge against Clinton for this.

This coming from the same people that think Chemistry is not an exact science. It is not surprise to me. Quote: “We first learned that chemistry is not an exact science,” Rio 2016 spokesman Mario Andrada told the AP Friday. Citation: http://time.com/4451260/rio-20...

25% is not nearly enough. Make it about 80%, pus or minus...

Leave the religious bullshit outside the door. If you want to stop the terrorists, you have to at least reduce their pay

Wow...let me JUST TAKE A WILD FUCKING GUESS why they went after Twitter...

Hope they weren't going after money, Twitter has yet to make any.

...it has been shown time and again that being a cop is actually one of the safest jobs...

So, because it's not the most dangerous job out there, it has to be one of the safest - that's some insanely stupid reasoning right there.
In 2014, being a police/sherrif patrol officer was the 15th most dangerous job.

There is in effect no difference and the purpose is exactly the same

You'll want to educate yourself as this statement betrays a profound ignorance on the topic

http://thelibertarianrepublic....
http://time.com/3222176/campus...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

If you take away nothing else from the above, you must acknowledge that they are lowering the burden of proof. That's hardly "no difference".

I take it that you are not from Georgia.

http://time.com/4422772/upskirt-photos-harassment

That is speculative, to be kind. You have absolutely no way to prove that the email server was setup for that purpose. To demonstrate their intent you would need something that you have no evidence to support.

Typically later actions are enough to prove intent. You're really bending over backward to give her the benefit of the doubt, and I understand that. But if it were you or I this is extra jail time.

Do you have a source for that?

Yes, in fact I do.

Nobody has shown that such an offense happened.

Yes, that's tampering with evidence. Try pulling this kind of nonsense if you're involved with a subpoena and see what happens. Prosecutors and judges will not accept "You can't prove what I deleted has any connection to the case" as a valid defense.

isn't that a little like leaving the gun on the kitchen table where the four year old can grab it while you're out in the garden?

Or under the seat of the truck, or in your purse, or under a pillow.

That said, AFAIK, Coca-Cola is the ONLY company authorized to buy de-cocanized coca leaves from the federal government's sole authorized supplier. So as a practical matter, even if you downloaded their allegedly secret formula online, you'd never be able to replicate it exactly unless you wanted to risk getting raided and arrested by DEA agents, since there's no legal second source for that key ingredient.

Tell that to Red Bull. You're mostly right -- there are only certain companies licensed to trade in coca leaf, probably because it'd be too easy otherwise to trade coca leaf under the cover of it being de-cocanized coca leaf -- but Stepan can sell to other beverage makers besides TCCC.

In response to the third reported Autopilot crash, which was the first of three where there were no fatalities

The first crash in Florida was the guy who got killed going under the truck while watching his DVD.
The second crash was a gallery owner in Detroit and he and his passenger survived without any injuries .
The third crash - the one apparently without autopilot - hit a guard rail in Montana. "The two occupants walked away without major injuries."

I don't know why this "fatalities in two crashes" myth is so pernicious. It was also falsely claimed in this Slashdot story on the third crash last Monday. But all of the linked articles are absolutely clear that there's been only one fatality, so it's not like the various submitters are just getting bad information from the media. Instead, the Subbys appear to be making up the second fatality out of nothing.

A more skeptical person than me would wonder if someone shorted TSLA.

It ain't just islam, though islam is just about the worst. What do you think of as one of the most mellow religions? Buddhism perhaps?

December 24, 2014: "A bar manager from New Zealand and two Burmese nationals are spending Christmas Day in Burma’s notorious Insein prison and will go on trial Friday, charged with insulting the Buddhist religion." The New Zealander was facing FOUR YEARS imprisonment. He was actually sentenced on March 17, 2015 to 2-1/2 years. One of the other two was sentenced to 2 years at HARD LABOR for insulting buddhism.

And it isn't limited to just religion.

December 15, 2015: "A Thai Man Faces Nearly 40 Years in Jail for Insulting the King’s Dog". And it turns out that lèse majesté prosecutions are pursued in ... wait for it ... the Netherlands as well as Thailand.

It ain't just islam, though islam is just about the worst. What do you think of as one of the most mellow religions? Buddhism perhaps?

December 24, 2014: "A bar manager from New Zealand and two Burmese nationals are spending Christmas Day in Burma’s notorious Insein prison and will go on trial Friday, charged with insulting the Buddhist religion." The New Zealander was facing FOUR YEARS imprisonment. He was actually sentenced on March 17, 2015 to 2-1/2 years. One of the other two was sentenced to 2 years at HARD LABOR for insulting buddhism.

And it isn't limited to just religion.

December 15, 2015: "A Thai Man Faces Nearly 40 Years in Jail for Insulting the King’s Dog". And it turns out that lèse majesté prosecutions are pursued in ... wait for it ... the Netherlands as well as Thailand.

You're arguing semantics. Gore ran on, among other things, tax cuts[1] and increased military spending[2]. He supported the Afghanistan War AND the Iraq War[3,4]. He chose Joe Lieberman as VP, who is quite possibly the most right-leaning Democrat in the Senate in the past 40 years[5], who vehemently supported the Iraq War -- so much so that he endorsed John McCain in 2008, supports the death penalty, introduced a bill to strip US persons of their citizenship without due process, supports censorship in entertainment, games, and online. Joe Lieberman is basically George Bush with a stronger grasp of the English language.
Back to Gore: He was aggressively free-trade[6], he wanted to keep medical marijuana illegal and double down on the War on Drugs[7], and he supported a "tough on crime" policy that included expanding the death penalty, mandatory minimum sentencing, and segregated schools for youth offenders[8]. He supported extraordinary rendition (kidnapping)[9] and pushed heavily for backdoors to encryption[10] while VP.

So yes, the GP is exactly right when he says we can't be sure Gore would have been better, and that even if he had done better on some issues, he may have been far worse on others, and thus worse overall.

1 http://www.4president.us/issue...
2 http://cjonline.com/stories/08...
3 https://www.wsws.org/en/articl...
4 http://www.science20.com/news_...
5 http://rightweb.irc-online.org...
6 http://www.ontheissues.org/Cel...
7 http://www.november.org/razorw...
8 http://www.ontheissues.org/Cel...
9 https://seekerblog.com/2007/09...
10 http://content.time.com/time/n...

I know it's embarrassing to you when the head of the Democrat party, in her role as the Speaker Of The House and the person who is completely in charge of the legislative agenda surrounding the bill in question gets up at her podium in an official press event and says that to you and me and everyone else on video ... I know you find that awkward.

Find what awkward? Your continuing decision to lie about it?

No, nor more than I do the lies about Shirley Sherrod.

Nothing awkward for me. It's curious that you bother, but not awkward for me.

Why would you think that? Are you somehow confused about what words mean, or do you just have no understanding of people's actual feelings?

If anything, every time somebody brings it up, I know it means they have nothing of substance to actually say.

I suppose I might feel chagrin though, that instead of healthy discussion and debate, we get lies.

And I understand that your instinctive liberal reaction is to wish the facts away so that you can pretend the person in charge of the congressional process of writing and handling that bill didn't actually say those words and cheerfully in many other settings convey the same sentiment. I know you wish that hadn't happened. But lazily attacking the person who reminds you of that, doesn't that ever get to you? Don't you ever wince when you try that craven bit of juvenile ad hominen in an effort to alter reality?

You're expecting me to put much effort into it, when it's been a debunked story known for years?

You might as well expect me to care about Romney's claim about an "act of terror" in the presidential debates.

But seriously, you've got nothing but ad hominem, that's why you can't defend your own words or ideas, but have to offer lies.

I know, you want us all to believe that you consider the Congressional Record to be a concoction.

Oh, you want to know who edited the Congressional Record? But I guess if you don't intend to make factual statements, you wouldn't want them to be kept.

The question is, who do you think is so dumb that they'll fall for your lazy attempt to distract? The bill in question was a disaster from conception to execution. The principal players involved in ramming it through knew that, lied about it repeatedly, and are well aware of the damage it would do and has done. Just like you. You will now once again try to tap-dance around the actual facts on the ground, and try some more childish foot-stomping. Carry on!

You're the one not talking about an actual bill, or offering a countering proposal, but spending a considerable amount of effort to belabor us with nothing more than an empty, long-discredited, shameful attempt at castigating Nancy Pelosi for a speech that you so desperately need to take out of context.

Unfortunately for you, the real speech can be read, go ahead, take your time:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi delivered a speech this morning at the 2010 Legislative Conference for the National Association of Counties (NACo). This year marks the 75th anniversary of the organization. Below are the Speaker’s remarks:

“Thank you, President Valerie Brown [of Sonoma County, Calif.] Don’t we all take pride in Valerie Brown recently being named County Official of the Year for her advocacy on behalf of all of America’s counties? Thank you, Valerie. Her

Seems like a pretty solid methodology to me. Even Time Magazine, no conservative outlet, notes that the official CPI is quite a bit lower than other oft-used measures of inflation, and that the CPI calculation has been tweaked consistently for the last several decades.

I'd strongly suggest that people not trespass in the deep south of the US, as you can be legally shot and killed for that.

Oh shut up. You cannot be legally shot and killed for trespassing alone.

Um-huh. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

Um-huh http://wbt.com/greenville-man-...

In Texas, Property is more valuable than human life - like it or not, it is codified. http://nation.time.com/2013/06...

Specifically, acquittals were provided for people who shot and kiled another person over a guy who was looking for a hooker on Craigslist, she didn't put out, os he followed her to her car and shot her from behind, which led to her death - verdict - acquittal.

Other justifiable homicides in Texas, as proven in the courts, include stealing a 20 dollar tip jar, 13 year old child breaking into a house, stealing a 6 pack of beer.

None of the actions by the dead are justified - although there was no apparent crime being committed in the first example, but in Texas, if you can bring a pretty good case that someone was trespassing or stealing, you are allowed to shoot them. You are not even required to be in personal danger, as a case involving a gentleman who killed two people who had robbed his neighbor.

Sorry coward - you are incorrect.

I'm also expecting the first of many lawsuits any day now, as users fall in ditches and rivers, and wander onto interstate Highways.

There is a big fat disclaimer on the game saying, PAY THE FUCK ATTENTION TO THE WORLD.

This is America. The end-around for what you assume to be a catch-all is that no printed disclaimer ever protects a manufacturer from gross negligence. Whether or not it even exists, they can be sued for gross negligence.

These are millenials, folks - people who have never been outside by themselves before - you can't expect them to be used to that situation immediately.

Go shut up old man. Get back to telling those damn kids to get off your lawn.

The problem little Coward, is that millenials don't often go outside. They have been under adult supervision their whole lives and don't know how to act. So now that Pokemon Go has tricked them into coming out of the basement, they are like baby squirrels, and don't know how to act in the big wide world.

I call BS on professional airline pilot. Pilot in general, sure, due to general aviation. But no way on commercial aviation.

You can call BS all you want.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

http://time.com/4326676/danger...

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/09/12...

These are statistics from three different years. And being a police officer is still less dangerous than being a taxi driver or janitor.

If you don't like the statistics, you can call and complain to the Washington Post, Time Magazine, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and CNBC.

I'll see your few scholarly research papers, and raise you several violent protests that you have missed. Even leftists have to worry about leftists, as I stated.

Further, I can show that leftist people and groups support the protests.

Well, one way to reply to a post calling out confirmation bias ... is to double down on the confirmation bias.

You have a funny term to refer to what would properly be labeled as 'observation of leftists, on social media and in real life'.

Apparently I get to represent all liberals now

Only if you are unable to parse my phrase, "Should I follow suit, ...", which limits the following phrase to a hypothetical question. But I guess such subtlety is wasted on leftists. (See, that is using your inability to read to claim all leftists are ignorant as well.)

(or at least the ones you don't like, with that bit of no-true-scotsman mixed in under cover of "I didn't mean everybody").

I'm not allowed to clarify my point that you have such a hard time understanding? Considering my original post was simply comparing attitudes and actions of nondescript left-wingers and right-wingers in the post I replied to. Since I wasn't the one who established the general groups under discussion, I certainly feel I have the right to make that clarification. Sorry if that upsets you.

Let's get back to your original claim, which can be distilled to 'liberals conform more than conservatives'.

Oh, wait a minute. I begin to see your problem. After writing all that above, I realize upon re-reading this line, that you simply are trying to argue the wrong claim. You think it is a discussion of whether one group or the other conforms to the expected norm. But that wasn't Ungrounded Lightning's argument, nor mine. UL said that those on the left "apply social pressure to each other to conform", and in response to (I assume) your question about right-wingers, I voiced my support of UL's argument, and provided an example.

I stand by my claim that leftists do much more to force their views on society, even on other leftists, than rightists do. That has nothing to do with whether right-wingers (AKA conservatives) by their nature want to keep things the way they are (also known as 'to conserve', funny how that is implied in the label 'conservative').

You are arguing the wrong case.

Group stigmatization and blame is appropriate and should be meted out when the group is responsible. Individuals alone should be held out as bad actors when they are not representative of the group. So let's go through some of your examples:

All Muslims are terrorists.

Individual. See numerous muslims condemning terrorist attacks. See a substantial number of the group condemning terrorism here, here, and numerous other places if you spend literally 15 seconds searching online.

I used the search term "muslim condemnation of terrorism"

All gun owners are murderers.

From what I see, gun owners very quick to condemn those who use them to murder others as being "madmen and terrorists," and advocate that having more guns would result in fewer murders. See here, here, and the commonly known meme "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."

You can disagree with whether they are right about their approach, but I'm sure you agree that they think mass murders are a problem which need to stop.

All computer gamers are anti-social psychopaths.

I haven't heard anybody make this accusation in recent years. I'll also note there is a lot of academic research going on to study if this is true or not, and if so how it can be addressed.

All police officers are bad actors

Uhh... I did a quick search and didn't see any groups associated with the police, and have seen nobody condemning police killings. Instead I see things like arrests of protesters, and conspiracies of silence and not turning in bad apples

All I see is prosecutor after prosecutor exercising discretion to not go after police corruption or murders, and the few times they do the carefully selected jury not holding them accountable. Maybe I'm only seeing a subset of the news, in which case I'd honestly love it if you could post counter-examples I could look at.

Oh, and to add:

Their lives are often at risk.

No, it isn't. They are #14, just after taxi drivers and construction laborer. Nobody talks about how noble Roofers are and how they deserve extra special honor and privilages due to the dangerous work they do.

Police have a miserable job which puts them in contact with bad situations (like psychiatrists, lawyers, and doctors)... but they seem to be the only group which tries to put itself on a pedestal and say they deserve extra-legal privileges because of it.

Defying Clinton is probably as lethal as defying the mob

He [Comey] has done it before and lived to tell the tale. Also worth noting he was George W. Bush's AG.

It'll be OK when Trump is president because he loves the Jews and Israel.

http://time.com/4392387/donald...

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the...

http://www.politicususa.com/20...

Oh, and didn't the FBI investigate the Orlando shooter TWICE, and found nothing to justify further interest? So, how would passing this amendment have prevented Orlando?

No the regulations were so severe in investigating people of interest that they were effectively dissuaded from further investigating even though the shooter was on the terrorist watchlist. And the FBI had a very strong suspicion that he was a ticking bomb So when you read between the lines you basically see that they discovered he was a protected class aka muslim and either looked the other way or were persuaded to look the other way because the optics wouldn't be good.. On top of that his wife is now being investigated as a link to this.

OK. There's something wrong when the FBI can't investigate someone Muslim, who wants to buy bulk ammo and body armor, is acting all squirrely, and has domestic violence issues. I'm all for political correctness, but this seems to be taking things a bit too far the wrong way. Someone in FBI management needs to step back and man up a bit.

ESPECIALLY...when (old white guy) I have to take my belt and shoes off every time I fly.

Oh, and didn't the FBI investigate the Orlando shooter TWICE, and found nothing to justify further interest? So, how would passing this amendment have prevented Orlando?

No the regulations were so severe in investigating people of interest that they were effectively dissuaded from further investigating even though the shooter was on the terrorist watchlist. And the FBI had a very strong suspicion that he was a ticking bomb So when you read between the lines you basically see that they discovered he was a protected class aka muslim and either looked the other way or were persuaded to look the other way because the optics wouldn't be good.. On top of that his wife is now being investigated as a link to this.

Why do people feel unable to watch a movie, and actually concentrate on what's going on, without feeling the need to eat continuously? Do not eat in the Cinema, ever. It's rude, and it's uncivilised.

I completely agree with you, but I think we're in the minority these days. I rarely go to the movies, but happened to be at one a week ago. The person next to me had a tray brought to him with, and I'm not kidding:

huge drink
a "personal" pizza
couple boxes of candy
huge popcorn
good-sized ice cream sundae

It was comically sad, and the noise was absurd. People say stuffing their faces with sugar water and buttered cardboard is "part of the experience" -- okay, fine. They should have special theaters set aside for those people. Stick them in with the noisy kids as well, since neither group seems all that interested in the movie.

Unfortunately seeing as movie theaters make 85% of their profits from concessions, this will never change (and will probably just get worse). Maybe this is the single saving grace of 3D movies -- it's slightly harder to shovel crap into your mouth while wearing the glasses.

It is pretty idiotic that our foreign policy and military establishment seem intent on picking periodic fights with China over stupid little things rather than trying to elevate the relationship to become close allies.

Have you been living under a rock for the last several years? The Chinese have been using dredgers to build artificial islands atop coral reefs in the South China Sea, and these islands are now equipped with huge runways for operating military craft from fighters to patrol aircraft to medium bombers; all so they can project firepower over the entire South China Sea. To simply claim the entire Sea right up to the coasts of their regional neighbors as their own is one thing, but China has invested in a massive military build-up to back up their claims with raw force. Many of those nations are our regional allies, especially the Philippines. And if that's not enough, the Chinese have long engaged in hostile cybercrimes against the United States, not only hacking critical military defense information (like the information on the F-35 they stole) but also an ongoing government-ran campaign to steal American commercial trade secrets that mirrors their complete and utter disdain for Western Intellectual Property rights.

And you're going to tell me that America is the one "picking fights" because we dared sail a ship too close to a few of their sand-castles? Freedom of Navigation exercises are run frequently, all over the globe, and are NOT mutually exclusive with traditional diplomacy.

I understand that some people are deeply suspicious or even disdainful of America's role in world politics; but when you try to make out the 800 pound gorilla of Asia - who's busy mugging everyone it can get its hairy paws on - as the poor victim here, you just come across as a moron.

ISIS has claimed responsibility for this, he may have acted without them but they certainly wouldn't have turned him down had they known of his plans. Perhaps they even did. http://time.com/4365507/orland...

http://time.com/4254801/donald...
http://www.cnn.com/videos/poli...
http://mashable.com/2016/03/12...

I think you're right. This is one of the areas where the US is greener than Europe.

A much greater percentage of freight in America is carried by train than that carried by train in Europe. European trains are largely passenger, while US trains are largely freight (I've read that less than 10% of European freight is carried by train, versus 40%+ for the US). As we've seen over the last year, there's no such thing as clean diesel, and diesel trucks are notoriously dirty (not to mention clogging up highways, causing accidents, etc.)

See, e.g.: http://business.time.com/2012/07/09/us-freight-railroads/

Did they continue the work that had been done looking at sunscreen effects on coral? Were these areas particular favorites for snorkeling and scuba? I understand temperature is a part of it, but if we are looking for other environmental factors, hydrocarbons would be one to consider.

Trump may come in on a wave of fear and flag waving but his power will be limited by his office. I predict that once he is in office he will accomplish little to nothing because the other branches will reign him in. I predict that trump will be a one time president who's term in office will be little more than a foot note on history.

Well the last idiot that got voted in (not once but twice) ended up starting an illegal and unjustified war in Iraq, the results of which the we and the rest of the developed world are still cleaning up after.

So yes, I am afraid of this walking mouth who says anything that anyone wants to hear at that moment and who has run into the ground at lest half of every business in his life, full financial support from his father notwithstanding.
Times Top 10 Trump Failures http://content.time.com/time/s...

He's a gambler who gambles with other people's money - and as a president he will gamble not only with our money but with every aspect of our lives.

So-called 'Universal Basic Income' will not scale up; everyone points to small EU countries who are only talking about it, haven't actually done it, who don't have trillions in National Debt to deal with. It won't work here in the U.S and in any number of first-world countries.

You UBI people also make another fatal assumption: That people, not having to work, will 'find their purpose in life'. They will not. Most people have no clue, their entire lives, what their 'purpose' is, and never find one; these people need to be given a purpose; it's called 'earning a living and surviving', AKA 'having a job'. Most people will sit around, eat, have sex, get fat, litter the planet with their directionless offspring, and otherwise get in trouble out of utter boredom and too-much-time-on-their-hands, all on the government dole.

Okay, calm down.

You are predicting that something won't work based on little more than your opinion. Let's throw some facts into the mix.

POINT 1

Taking the US as an example, since you mentioned it specifically, note that the GDP per capita in the US is a little over $53K per person. If the productivity output of the US were evenly distributed, that means that every man, woman, and child could spend $53,000 on goods and services this year, and next year they would have another $53 to spend.

Count only the working adults (about half the population) and that number doubles.

POINT 2

Productivity has about doubled since 1970. That's only 40 years ago. If you believe the trend is linear, it will double again in another 40 years, but if it is exponential, then it will quadrouple in another 40 years.

POINT 3

A hypothetical $1,000,000 invested in an index fund is expected to return around 7% interest over the long term. You need to take the long view on this rate, and not cherry-pick individual past decades - it's been consistent with the rise of productivity. See point 2 above.

Given 1% for management fees and 2% to account for inflation, that $1 million would pay out $40,000 per year in perpetuity.

The US could start a process of putting $1 million deposits aside and awarding the payouts to working class people on some schedule. A lottery, for example. If you want to work, you don't have to enter the lottery.

Note that the cost of the Iraq war was $1.7 trillion dollars, spent over a decade. That amount of money awarded to worker annuities could have reduced the workforce by 1.7 million workers, making the remaining jobs easier to find.

POINT 4

Note that we are rapidly developing self-driving vehicles. The first self-driving semi is on the road right now!

Even if the self-driving vehicle isn't useful 100% of the time (snow, limited visibility), by my calculations this will dump 2.5 million into the labor force almost instantly.

Note that Amazon is experimenting with delivery by drone. This could potentially drop another million into the workforce almost overnight. (If you include postal workers and some others not accounted for in the previous link.)

POINT 5

Regardless of whether you think it will work or not, something has to change.

You either make it work, or try to survive the burning destruction of the US, a modern recast of the French Revolution.

Do you have kids? You might consider what type of world you want them to live in.

It should be "...not enough to support a household at their current standard of living.

I'll change it further: "at the minimum lawful standard of living in the region." If you try raising your own vegetables in a garden, you get fined for operating an unlicensed garden, as Oak Park once did to Julie Bass. If you give up your apartment and instead live on the street, you get arrested for violating the sit/lie law.

Just because Apple isn't rolling out more advanced features doesn't mean they aren't spending on R&D privately.

Heck, they're not even being "private" about it. The SEC takes care of that...

" because its unlikely you'll lose more that one unexpectedly"
When something happens that's bad enough to trip a nuke plant offline, it usually affects a sizable chunk of the grid.
And getting your nuke plant back online isn't trivial.

Here's an example full of irony - in late Feb 2008, a sudden decline in wind production required the Texas grid operators to cut power to several large interruptible industrial customers, dropping over 1.1 GW of demand within 10 minutes.
So a near crisis was averted and a big pile of fodder was grown for the anti-wind crowd who still bring this near-miss event as a testament to the dangers of reliance on intermittent power.

http://www.reuters.com/article...

But the last 2 lines of the Reuters link above mentions an actual outage that the renewable energy detractors *never* bring up - the *very same day* in Florida an electrical fire at a substation in Miami triggered a cascading failure that knocked Turkey Point Nuclear Station offline and caused a blackout affecting 3 million across all the way to Tampa & Daytona and it was at least 4 hours before power was restored.

http://content.time.com/time/n...

"Just like in Germany, when sometimes they can't even supply 2% of demand"

Looking at Fraunhofer's charts of electricity production for the past 6 years, those times are quite rare or coincide with high solar output.
But, yes, intermittency is a concern. That said, Germany has had pretty darn good forecasting in place since about 2009.
And, more importantly they have a modern grid with good interlinks to other markets, something the USA could improve domestically.
https://www.energy-charts.de/p...
The Tres Amigas Superstation, if it ever gets built, will be of tremendous benefit to ERCOT and the southern grids.

My point in all of this is that if you make a solvable issue sound insurmountable because you want to make a political point you weaken you position. Once they see you exaggerate in one area they assume you exaggerate (or make stuff up) in all areas because of your agenda. Be honest about the positive effects along with the negative and you won't have so many deniers.

Perhaps you could use some critical thinking skills when reading my post.
The scientific consensus about climate is that there will be places on the Earth that have traditionally supported human habitation that will be adversely impacted in the future. We are already seeing this happen.

The places that will be impacted, in all likelihood, will have population movements(migrations) away from them, to, somewhere else that has a climate that more easily supports human life.

As I pointed out, technology could be used to alleviate the problems of extreme heat, however the financial and political force to do that doesn't exist in most of the places that will be impacted like areas of the Middle East and South Asia.

I never said these problems are insurmountable, you did, and you filtered my post through your politicized lens, which isn't surprising in todays hyper-partisan political climate.

I was merely asking the simple questions about how will we deal with this.
I think it is a good thing to be cognizant of possible outcomes and to prepare for them.

Well, there is the tax issue, as well as acting like their espionage agencies committing crimes abroad is somehow legal because the US government has authorised it, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which has been used repeatedly to extort money from foreign companies thad had bribed officials in a third country, and a few other extra-jurisdictional abuses of power.

It's coming. Employers think you're suspicious (or even a psychopath) if you aren't posting on Facebook every day...

I work late shift right now and I like it. I worked graveyard shifts before and loved them. Sadly they were taken away "for the employees' benefit" (read: "because it was more expensive").

Graveyard shift is actually killing people

That is their existing profit margin, they don't have 16% to give.

From 2014: "ground beef prices are at a record high, after rising 76% since 2009." -- Your 4 Favorite Things to Eat & Drink Are Getting More Expensive as one of the many things much more expensive.

Meanwhile, from 2015: "Between 2007 and 2012, a number of cities have seen at least a 50 percent increase in fast food restaurant outlets." -- Tracking Fast Food Restaurant Growth on the USDA's New Food Atlas as one of several indicators that overall fast food restaurant growth is booming.

Further, in 2009: "As it turns out, Wendy's really isn't cutting corners with its signature square burgers. If you can find a Wendy's location that's selling this item for 99 cents (some have bumped the price up to $1.49), you'll be sinking your teeth into the most beef you can get for less than a dollar." -- Top 5 Fast Food Value Menu Deals vs in 2016 "Double Stack $2.09" -- Wendy’s Prices

In short, suck it your short-sighted, obviously wrong idea that (1) price increase are something unabsorable by the industry, (2) price increase will cause a shrinking of the fast food industry, or (3) there's a 1:1 correlation with cost increases and price increases except in the obvious direct sense (the breakdown of the cost of a burger shows that the cost was basically 100% passed to the consumer). Yet (3) obviously doesn't override (1) and (2). If anything, as others have noted, the simple fact that the money is being effectively sucked OUT of the local economy and yet the fast food industry thrives would indicate that wage increases that "reinvest" in the local economy would actually make things even better.

So, yea, fuck you.

Uh. You might want to go back and re-read some stuff...like facts. It's the democrats who liked the fairness doctrine, and it was them most recently who tried to get it back in several times in fact. I picked two left-leaning sources. So have some right leaning sources as well. The GOP has been fundamentally against that.

One also can't forget that it was Zuckerburg that threw the hissyfit over "all lives matter" because people think that "black lives matter" is BS.

During the joint press conference with Merkel, Obama noted that Dresden had overcome "great tragedies and is now this beautiful city full of hope."

I expect he'll deliver something similar in Hiroshima, an acknowledgement of their suffering, with absolutely no mention of the cause and sugarcoated with some positive comment about the present or future. Why would he change a winning recipe?

Similar levels of unstable individuals?
Considering that "police officer" ranks in the top ten jobs for the most psychopaths, I don't trust your assessment.
Citation: http://www.independent.co.uk/n...
http://time.com/32647/which-pr...

Guys, guys, stop it already with the sarcasms. He can't detect or understand it.

Hi Peter, nice to see you around again. Off your meds?

Love,

Dad.

US Spy Court Didn't Reject a Single Government Surveillance Request In 2015

Of course they didn't, why would they? This "court" is well known to be a Kangaroo Court with a specific purpose of rubber-stamping all that is put before it. This, and the continued existence of the so-called "Patriot Act" are why I, a life-long liberal who made the mistake of voting for Mr. Obama twice, will not be voting for his almost certain successor, the slimy Hilary Clinton. What a corrupt political landscape where a man like Donald Trump is truly the lessor of two evils...

Who would you have picked in Obama's place? Mitt Romney? Obama's hardly the best president we've ever had, but he's hardly the worst either. If you want to vote for Trump, then alright, but . Trump either has absolutely no idea what he's talking about (most likely), or he's seriously talking about shutting down Twitter and Facebook, which I highly doubt. Hillary Clinton will further push spy programs down our throat, but Donald Trump would undoubtly rubberstamp any bill on it because he can't oppose everything other people do. Hillary Clinton might at least backdown if the response is strong enough because her whole campaign for 12+ years has been changing direction as soon as any hint of controversy appears. What I'm trying to say is that she might realize that most people are strongly opposed to it and stop such a program because she fears for her already battered public perception, whereas Trump has no qualms about holding a stupid view.

Quite honestly, no major candidate has a good policy towards internet privacy, there is no choice we can make this election cycle. Our best bet is to hope someone comes around in 2020 with a better view, and to continue to create a mess for the government until such a person arrives. If we're going to lose this fight, I'd at least want to win our other battles, and I think a president who has absolutely no clue how to do his job and thinks closing our borders and sticking our heads in the sand is how we improve our society is a fool.

Remember when everyone was calling Tom Wheeler, and by extension Obama, shills that were in the pocket the of the cable industry?

Yes I remember at the time he was proposing an internet fast lane.

2014 [pivot] 2015

Not that I'm complaining.

It's not "self imposed" but cost imposed. Data caps are a proxy for bandwidth use. If everyone used too much bandwidth, they'd have to buy more. So caps impose usage penalties designed to reduce overall bandwidth usage, to decrease cost.

Except that Comcast has explicitly said that the caps are not about resource management. They are solely a money-making scheme. And they are not uniform across Comcast's network. For example, I live in Eastern MA, where Comcast competes with Verizon FIOS (whiich has no caps). Guess what? Comcast has a 250G cap which is "not currently enforced".

http://time.com/money/4143682/...