Slashdot Mirror

It was powered by cheap energy: https://gailtheactuary.files.w...

I've already done all that

. It was enlightening.

No, the jobs aren't going away permanently; they might go away more quickly than they come back--which would *destroy* our economy, just like the Industrial Revolution did. We can prevent that by slowing the uptake through economic factors, to the same end result of a mass increase in wealth but with the omission of the intermediate mass economic collapse.

One of the bigger problems today is everyone has backwards ideals about economy. They think money is wealth, they think technology destroys wealth, they think globalization makes us poor, they think jobs are going away forever, etc... they demand action that will only lead to a poorer working class, wide-spread poverty, slower growth, and more pain and suffering and death. People only care about what they see, because thinking is hard.

Think about a dog for a minute. You put a shock collar on your dog because the dog always chases bigger dogs. When your dog sees and starts to chase a bigger dog, you hit the button and the dog gets a horribly-painful shock. The dog doesn't understand the source of the shock--you didn't run up and beat it with a stick--but it knows that shocks have started coming when a big dog appears. What's your dog going to do? It's going to see big dog, realize it's bringing a shock with it, and attack the big dog *more* viciously to get rid of it.

That's what's going on with most people talking about our economic problems today: they see the rich, or they see welfare, or they see outsourcing, and they say, "Man, if I had that rich guy's money, if that poor fucker didn't have *my* money, and if that chinese kid didn't steal my job, I'd be rich! All our troubles would go away if we fixed all this!" That's the same kind of thinking that got us long-ass threads on Slashdot when someone posts about Uber passengers getting assaulted, and literally 2/3 of the comments are quoting statistics on how many blacks commit crimes versus how many whites, and people are trying to build a case that black people are inherently and genetically predisposed to be criminals and that America would be a model, crime-free country if we got rid of all the blacks. For some reason, economics and sociology draw shoddy analysis from laypeople who think they know everything.

Actually, that's not quite true, although our business administration has somewhat faltered. Better business techniques would be a good technology to study...

We can see the slow-down of technological growth after 1970, even though new technology kept coming. Still, a smaller percent of the total income (and of the individual's income for most individuals and families) goes toward the same goods each year, and people buy more and better things ("better" actually abstracts from "more": your car has power windows, anti-lock brakes, and air conditioning, which a 1938 Chevrolet Corvette didn't). Scarcity reduces, population increases, and more jobs come to cover population growth.

I have a current weak theory that businesses will take fewer risks in a less-stable economy. As such, one goal of my Citizen's Dividend is to drive more technological advancement by the stabilization effect. My Dividend aims, without major increases in taxes on the upper class, to:

• * provide enough income to survive;
• * reduce the effective taxes on most of the population or, more simply, to increase the number of take-home dollars per wage-labor dollar the employer expends on an employee;
• * reduce and slow the growth of the relative cost of hiring human labor versus using new technology, largely by moving payroll taxes to income taxes, reducing income taxes on the working class (you pay them less but they take home the same), and using a Dividend instead of a minimum wage increase (instead of making the employer pay $5/hr more, we give you $5/hr more)

This gives the consumer base more spending power without implementing Piketty-style taxes (45%, 55%, or 85% income tax on income over $1M, etc.), while also reducing the employer cost of human workers in relation to e.g. machines. It does this through the mechanism of a more effective welfare system.

The increase in consumer buying power creates jobs; and the increase in human worker competition with technological redundancy doesn't simply delay, but rather *spreads* replacement. Businesses have risk appetite and risk threshold. Risk appetite is how much they *want* to invest (i.e. lose) for the possibility of a return (i.e. gain); and risk threshold is the hard limit at which they bail. Different businesses will either jump in early (reduce costs now) or jump in late (keep paying workers $1/hr more than machines because in 4 years the machine will be $5/hr cheaper and will net us an extra $650,000 in savings over its life); and they'll finance differently (without so much pressure to compete and with so little advantage, they'll be less-apt to take loans for an early transition) and transition differently (location-by-location roll-out, instead of all-at-once). That protects us from sudden mass technological unemployment that comes with having $9/hr, $11/hr, and $14/hr machines and suddenly making human labor cost $15/hr instead of $8/hr.

As technology rolls in, we see lay-offs. These people become unemployed, and then prices come down over time--not immediately. Often, prices of technologically-improved goods simply grow more slowly than inflation, and so it takes years to recover the buying power in the consumer market. When we finally do, we buy new goods, creating new demand for labor, thus getting the unemployed back into those new jobs.

So what's all this mean?

It means my Dividend aims to make human labor cheaper so it doesn't get replaced as rapidly by technology, and so it gets returned to the labor force more rapidly. People become unemployed more slowly and become re-employed more quickly. That's a stabilizing effect.

That brings me to one of my big, secondary goals: In such a more stable environment, businesses can more readily project th

Actually, that's not quite true, although our business administration has somewhat faltered. Better business techniques would be a good technology to study...

We can see the slow-down of technological growth after 1970, even though new technology kept coming. Still, a smaller percent of the total income (and of the individual's income for most individuals and families) goes toward the same goods each year, and people buy more and better things ("better" actually abstracts from "more": your car has power windows, anti-lock brakes, and air conditioning, which a 1938 Chevrolet Corvette didn't). Scarcity reduces, population increases, and more jobs come to cover population growth.

I have a current weak theory that businesses will take fewer risks in a less-stable economy. As such, one goal of my Citizen's Dividend is to drive more technological advancement by the stabilization effect. My Dividend aims, without major increases in taxes on the upper class, to:

• * provide enough income to survive;
• * reduce the effective taxes on most of the population or, more simply, to increase the number of take-home dollars per wage-labor dollar the employer expends on an employee;
• * reduce and slow the growth of the relative cost of hiring human labor versus using new technology, largely by moving payroll taxes to income taxes, reducing income taxes on the working class (you pay them less but they take home the same), and using a Dividend instead of a minimum wage increase (instead of making the employer pay $5/hr more, we give you $5/hr more)

This gives the consumer base more spending power without implementing Piketty-style taxes (45%, 55%, or 85% income tax on income over $1M, etc.), while also reducing the employer cost of human workers in relation to e.g. machines. It does this through the mechanism of a more effective welfare system.

The increase in consumer buying power creates jobs; and the increase in human worker competition with technological redundancy doesn't simply delay, but rather *spreads* replacement. Businesses have risk appetite and risk threshold. Risk appetite is how much they *want* to invest (i.e. lose) for the possibility of a return (i.e. gain); and risk threshold is the hard limit at which they bail. Different businesses will either jump in early (reduce costs now) or jump in late (keep paying workers $1/hr more than machines because in 4 years the machine will be $5/hr cheaper and will net us an extra $650,000 in savings over its life); and they'll finance differently (without so much pressure to compete and with so little advantage, they'll be less-apt to take loans for an early transition) and transition differently (location-by-location roll-out, instead of all-at-once). That protects us from sudden mass technological unemployment that comes with having $9/hr, $11/hr, and $14/hr machines and suddenly making human labor cost $15/hr instead of $8/hr.

As technology rolls in, we see lay-offs. These people become unemployed, and then prices come down over time--not immediately. Often, prices of technologically-improved goods simply grow more slowly than inflation, and so it takes years to recover the buying power in the consumer market. When we finally do, we buy new goods, creating new demand for labor, thus getting the unemployed back into those new jobs.

So what's all this mean?

It means my Dividend aims to make human labor cheaper so it doesn't get replaced as rapidly by technology, and so it gets returned to the labor force more rapidly. People become unemployed more slowly and become re-employed more quickly. That's a stabilizing effect.

That brings me to one of my big, secondary goals: In such a more stable environment, businesses can more readily project th

https://honestnetworker.wordpr...

Yes, Simpletons. We ought to have 25 people selling the last mile

Here's the libertarian version of network delivery - New York City:

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-...

https://keithyorkcity.files.wo...

Lest we think it can't happen today - in India:

http://farm2.staticflickr.com/... By the way folks, don't use the many providers over one fiber stuff - to have one company put up the wire/fiber then force them to allow anyone to use and charge fo rit is about as anti-libertarian as you can get.

Anybody who disagrees with SkepticalScience has a 'grudge'. Funny how that works.

No, anybody who baselessly libels the same scientists ad nauseum by baselessly accusing them of fraud seems to have a 'grudge'.

SkepticalScience is an activist blog. I wouldn't trust anything they produce.

So you're baselessly accusing Cook et al. of lying about the authors' self-ratings because you don't like the fact that more authors rate their own papers as having a higher endorsement than the other way around.

How about Richarg Tol? I'll bet he has a 'grudge' as well?

Richard Tol: "Published papers that seek to test what caused the climate change over the last century and half, almost unanimously find that humans played a dominant role."

US is just serving their own interests, just like Russia is, I wouldnt expect either of them to do otherwise

I'm from Sweden.

http://www.viewsoftheworld.net...
http://www.viewsoftheworld.net...

2005-2013: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpb... 2013: https://warewhulf.files.wordpr...
Beginning of 2014: http://gatesofvienna.net/wp-co...
Beginning of 2015: http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/6...

Can't find a similar image for 2015 (that's what I'm googling for but yeah.. it didn't become prettier.)

Our "elected" "leaders" and "representatives" of "the people" and the "nation" currently focus mostly on trying to get Sweden into the UN security council or whatever it is and then I guess they focus on trying to make it into EU or UN politics. Fuck the Swedes for all they care, it's all about what they can force the Swedes to do for the citizens of any other country.

Actually, the 'beat your wife with a stick' law is a myth , at least for the US. However, it's condoned, even encouraged in other parts of the world. Interestingly enough, the US is bending over backwards to be tolerant of those parts of the world where wife-beating is the norm...

Where as I would have said the cost of getting there was something they couldn't control. For example it is a hell of a lot cheaper for me to go to Japan than it is to the US. $400 return vs $1200 return. If you are in Canada driving across the border is always going to win on price.

Also I have travelled the US and Japan and what you are describing isn't really comparable. For example Tokyo has a population of 31 million vs new yorks 8.5 million. Density is simply much higher everywhere in Japan. So when I'm talking about Ryokans they still tend to be in a city of a million plus. Be it Nagano or Kyoto or Hiroshima. They are also really really nice. Much nicer than a cheap motel.

My experience in Japan is that what you get at the cheap end of the market is of better quality than what you get at the cheap end of the US market. Food is incredibly cheap and extremely good. The US has huge quantities of cheap food but, in my opinion, it loses out on the quality side.

There are somethings that are much cheaper in the US though. Hiring a car for one is a lot more expensive and a much bigger pain in Japan. Driving is also much more expensive with higher fuel costs and lots of tolls.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to put the US down at all. All I am saying is that Japan isn't an expensive place to visit. And one of the great things about Japan, as opposed to Australia, UK, USA, Canada, NZ or even Western Europe to a degree is that it is really really really different. You really know you are not in Kansas anymore yet at the same time the people a friendly and the place is easy to travel.

And once you have walked the Philosophers Walk in Kyoto in Hanami season it will have its claws into you. - https://lightslant.files.wordp... or autumn - http://www.yokoso-japan.jp/_to...

You don't hang out on "those kind of websites" -- i.e., web sites that apply critical thinking to the assertions promoted by James Hansen, the assertions promoted by Michael Mann, the assertions promoted by Al Gore, etc.

Restricting oneself to uncritical, non-diverse sources of information -- a filter bubble, an echo chamber -- is a problem, is it not?

The datasets that do show warming have received far more corrections than the UAH satellite dataset. So by your criteria, they are more suspect than the UAH satellite dataset.

HTTP/2 might be the actual main motive for this switch. HTTP/2 is more efficient than HTTP/1 but requires TLS encryption.

Indeed, wordpress.com does offer HTTP/2:

url="https://www.wordpress.com"
curl -v --http2 -I -o /dev/null "$url" 2>&1 |grep ALPN
* ALPN, offering h2
* ALPN, offering http/1.1
* ALPN, server accepted to use h2

Well, you're simply wrong about that. It has been a thing for many years. It is without problems.

Wanna bet?

http://www.fox13news.com/news/...

http://dailysignal.com/2016/01...

http://globalnews.ca/news/2546...

https://allisonslaw.wordpress....

That took about 10 seconds to find. Give me 10 minutes and I'll have a hundred of them.

You are wrong based on the facts in evidence.

The real unsurprising story: DOE is developing a method to efficiently transmit 50KW wirelessly - meaning they can boil a 100kg person, wirelessly, in just under 9 minutes:

(100 x 4 x 63 / 3412 = 7.4kW to do it in an hour) https://elementsofheating.word...

So your argument boils down to that you think this person should be forced to use the female bathroom because they were "born female": https://metrouk2.files.wordpre...

Do you have the possibility of going to India for awhile?

In no way am I comparing the US to other countries and their current state of opportunity or fairness... mature places like Europe have incredibly entrenched wealth/ownership much moreso than the US, emerging markets like India/China still have crushing poverty for the majority of the population like the US hasn't seen for 100+ years. This is more a statement of where we are vs where we could (should) be going.

Still, emerging markets like India also offer incredible opportunity for building wealth - if you have enough to invest/risk, you can be making 4x the gains there that you might for equivalent investments in the US today.

I'm not talking about building wealth. I'm talking about gaining perspective and adjusting one's attitude to fit the realities of life as opposed to the sense of entitlement that we westerners are born with.

That person of the family of four who wants to go to night school but 'cannot' should go live in India for a year and then we'll see if they still think that they 'cannot' do night school back wherever they come from even given the inconveniences that they face.

I consider a sense of entitlement part of the human condition, and not an altogether good one. I think that humanity as a whole needs to get stronger perspective on what they are doing to their planet and adjust their expectations of what the Earth should be giving us - this guy stood up and published a book along those lines: http://eowilsonfoundation.org/... basically what I ranted in a blog about a few years back: https://5050by2150.wordpress.c...

Still, even if we do scale back our expectations of what the Earth should be giving us, I don't think for a minute that those of us who are not "untouchable" should be grateful for our standing, or that the untouchables should be grateful to be alive as humans at all... Those who are more fortunate should share, better than they do today, with those who are less fortunate. From the perspective of an already highly fortunate westerner, the sad perspective of the last 30 years is that we have been sharing less and less, not more and more. It's an extremely complex picture, nothing one person can realistically communicate to another in its entirety, but the high level trends seem clear enough from where I stand.

However, we need to consider it in context of the entire automotive industry, and it most likely won't end up as the one car company to rule the world.

This idea that it's the goal of companies to rule the world (in their their field) is nonsense. It comes from Microsoft doing that in the 90s. But despite that occurrence it's very rare indeed. And it's not what companies generally shoot for. Success doesn't require extermination of all competitors.

So, 1%. That coincidentally was the share of the market Steve Jobs said he was shooting for with the iPhone. Get in a few short years they were in the 30% to 60% area of market share, where they've remained ever since.

The only way is up for Tesla. EV technology looks like one of these.
https://slickercity.files.word...
Might take decades, but the only way is up.

Cancer incidents, among children, in the 1st world, has been rising since the 1970s.

Here's a nice graph for UK.

http://healthandenvironmentblo...

The incidence (not survival) of every major cancer variety except bladder cancer went up from 1971 to 2003.

Rising pseudo-estrogens, declining nutrient levels in raw vegetables, declining nutrient values in various raw meats, and sharply declining nutrient values in processed foods contributed. Lack of adequate sleep was also a factor.

It's true for men too.

Several factors.
1) Cost cutting. You can compare the list of more expensive foods to cheaper foods and the more expensive foods are made of food while the cheaper foods are made of weird stuff. For example: Soy sauce can be "Soy + water + salt" or "soy and corn protein, caramel coloring, high fructose corn syrup, salt, yada yada yada". They make some franken food that looks like and sort of tastes like real food but which is much cheaper.

2) Burned out soil. While we raise the amount of fruits and vegetables we get out of a plot of soil- the nutrients are being leached out by over farming. We are losing topsoil in the U.S.

3) Use of anti-biotics, cages resulting in unhealthy bloated animals.

4) Water. Lots and lots of water. Ham and chicken can be as high as 32% water now. It's not really as cheap as it seems since the water boils off in cooking so a pound of chicken has the nutrition of 2/3 of a pound of chicken.

5) Non-GMO fruit and vegetables bred for high shelf life with higher cellulose content than fruit and vegetables used to have. For humans, cellulose is not a nutrient.

it doesn't matter so much once you hit the last 15 years of your life. it might make a difference of a year or two. but for kids, it can have a huge effect. Especially the psuedo-estrogens.

That's definitely not true, this image shows that healthcare costs have been rising in Europe, too.

It's going to take decades, even in China:

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

And the numbers aren't anywhere near as good as you might think:

https://gailtheactuary.files.w...

Electric cars are a harder sell:

http://www.bls.gov/green/elect...

And are contributing to much higher peak energy usage (some rapid chargers are 45KW or more).

However, their impact is limited. To get people to ditch ICE and go all EV, what would that take? We're talking replacing 75 million annual car sales into EV that are currently selling in the hundreds of thousands at best.

Even at TEN TIMES that rate, it will be decades before it makes a dent in total car ownership.

And total greenhouse gas emission of them isn't as large as you might think:

https://www3.epa.gov/climatech...

(Don't forget that "transportation" at 1/4 of total emissions includes support for industry which makes up another 1/4.) Assuming you cut car emissions and electricity emissions BY HALF over the next, what, century? That's only 25% of current emissions. Which takes us back to 1991 levels of emissions, roughly.

So by two major, radical changes in policy (energy production and transport), with millions of knock-on effects (how do you convince people to buy new EV cars?), and assuming quite good ratios of conversion, efficiency, discounting "cost", and investing decades of work, we might get back to where we were... two decades ago.

I'm literally googling this as I go, I'm not claiming it as gospel. But even TRYING to follow that path, I can't see the way out that would make any significant difference. Certainly not compared to, say, doubling the price of electricity or fuel by taxation, for instance.

Which is a paperwork exercise that can be reverted in a day.

"Universal surveillance is a direct, targeted and determined attack on free society. "

They are worried about the globe awakening politically.

Our brains are much worse at reality and thinking than thought.

Science on reasoning:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYmi0DLzBdQ

The (mass surveillance) by the NSA and abuse by law enforcement is just more part and parcel of state suppression of dissent against corporate interests. They're worried that the more people are going to wake up and corporate centers like the US and canada may be among those who also awaken. See this vid with Zbigniew Brzezinski, former United States National Security Advisor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7ZyJw_cHJY

Brezinski at a press conference

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWTIZBCQ79g

Protectionism for the rich and big business by state intervention, radical market interference.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHj2GaPuEhY#t=349

From war is a racket:

"I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil intersts in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested."[p. 10]

"War is a racket. ...It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives." [p. 23]

"The general public shoulders the bill [for war]. This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones. Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Depression and all its attendant miseries. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations." [p. 24]

General Butler is especially trenchant when he looks at post-war casualties. He writes with great emotion about the thousands of tramautized soldiers, many of who lose their minds and are penned like animals until they die, and he notes that in his time, returning veterans are three times more likely to die prematurely than those who stayed home.

http://www.amazon.com/War-Racket-Antiwar-Americas-Decorated/dp/0922915865/">War is a racket

US distribution of wealth

https://imgur.com/a/FShfb

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

The Centre for Investigative Journalism

http://www.tcij.org/

Some history on US imperialism by us corporations.

https://kurukshetra1.wordpress.com/2015/09/27/a-brief-history-of-imperialism-and-state-violence-in-colombia/

"...does our current group of "leaders" not get?"

They get it, they worry about the globe awakening politically.

Our brains are much worse at reality and thinking than thought.

Science on reasoning:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYmi0DLzBdQ

The (mass surveillance) by the NSA and abuse by law enforcement is just more part and parcel of state suppression of dissent against corporate interests. They're worried that the more people are going to wake up and corporate centers like the US and canada may be among those who also awaken. See this vid with Zbigniew Brzezinski, former United States National Security Advisor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7ZyJw_cHJY

Brezinski at a press conference

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWTIZBCQ79g

Protectionism for the rich and big business by state intervention, radical market interference.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHj2GaPuEhY#t=349

From war is a racket:

"I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil intersts in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested."[p. 10]

"War is a racket. ...It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives." [p. 23]

"The general public shoulders the bill [for war]. This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones. Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Depression and all its attendant miseries. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations." [p. 24]

General Butler is especially trenchant when he looks at post-war casualties. He writes with great emotion about the thousands of traumatized soldiers, many of who lose their minds and are penned like animals until they die, and he notes that in his time, returning veterans are three times more likely to die prematurely than those who stayed home.

http://www.amazon.com/War-Racket-Antiwar-Americas-Decorated/dp/0922915865/">War is a racket

US distribution of wealth

https://imgur.com/a/FShfb

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

The Centre for Investigative Journalism

http://www.tcij.org/

Some history on US imperialism by us corporations.

https://kurukshetra1.wordpress.com/2015/09/27/a-brief-history-of-imperialism-and-state-violence-in-colombia/

I believed I have some of his works - they remain unread and part of what I picked up at a (now gone) buddy's estate sale. At one point, I went to create an index of all my books. I'm way too lazy for that. (I've about two dozen good sized bookshelves that are all full and about a half-dozen more that aren't quite full and then the room is lined with more shelves of varied fullness.) (Oh, and that's not even all of them - I have boxes of 'em still unpacked since moving here back in late 2008, I was in for Christmas.)

Anyhow, so I went looking for a cover to see if I had it - I can often remember the cover. Instead, I found this:
https://hotk.files.wordpress.c...

That may, ore may not, be what you're looking for - and the home URL may have more leads.

If you only read the biased blurb posing as a post, you would imagine that the movie is about Dr. Andrew Wakefield. Follow the link to the movie's website, and you will find that it focuses on Dr. William Thompson, CDC Senior Scientist & Whistleblower.

A case of fraud has been uncovered in the CDC data linking vaccination to Autism. This data seems to contradict the 'Nail in the Coffin' cohort longitudinal study (a study is not an experiment) that practically nobody who claims to have an opinion actually read.

Instead of focusing on the individual, focus on the facts. You can read Wakefield's own words regarding his research. You can call Wakefield names, but keep in mind that history is littered with scientists who were vilified and ultimately vindicated. For instance, Nobel Laureate Dr. Barry Marshall for suggesting that H Pylori could live within the acidic environment of the stomach.

Personally, I trust that science will ultimately prevail in due time. I also recognize that there is a genetic link, and there may be other environmental factors that have not been thoroughly researched, such as diet, antibiotics, plastics, etc. Finally, I would be willing to accept that even if a link between Autism and vaccination is ultimately proven, the vaccination campaign may still doing more good than harm to society.

The bottom line is that a mob, such as this, grabs their pitchforks without thinking. The many responses on this and similar Slashdot posts do not further knowledge. They only spread FUD.

Uniloc OTOH is a total NPE. They produce nothing of value.

They produce something. And they've produced security and DRM related stuff since 1992.

> I just don't get it.
That's because you don't manage multiple domains. Uploading files is D-O-G slow. I get ~130 Mb/s down, ~12 Mb/s up (bits) which is 16 MB/s down and 1 MB/s up (bytes) and it STILL takes ages to upload anything. Other sites upload wicked fast.

> Yahoo mail is fine
Maybe for you. But it blows for multiple reasons:

0. Ad spamfest
1. For the rest of us searching still sucks compared to Gmail. (Their Javascript rewrite was horrible for months: slow, crappy UI, etc.)
2. Their offline mail archive blows. Where the fuck is the ability to download ALL my mail FOLDERS + contents offline?? This may have changed recently -- I changed checked in years. For years they only offered folders via "mobile only" bullshit.
3. Gmail's UNDO is _awesome_.
4. You've never had to deal with all the spammers trying to hijack your account
5. You've never had to deal with technical support. Good luck even getting in touch with a live human to report an issue.
6. You've never had their mail system fail over without any explanation.

It this poll of 579 people is any indication, Yahoo sucks far more then Gmail or Hotmail.
* https://yahoomailreview.wordpr...

> why do people seem to dislike them so?
In addition to all the stuff mentioned above another reason is because of all the other bloated shit they throw on their "portal" page. I don't want nor need their crap. /Oblg. Yahoo vs Google Homepage
* http://i.imgur.com/kOjcHU5.gif

Back in the day they used to be good for custom domain + web hosting. Today they are overpriced.

Here's another opinion:
* http://techcrunch.com/2014/12/...

Most of those jobs are for lower pay and/or are less secure than they were in the previous generation.

Not precisely. It depends on your definition of pay, and on time scales. The jobs consistently pay a lower percentage of total income (otherwise population couldn't grow); however, they also consistently pay a higher amount of absolute buying power. That is to say: Our ability to produce doubles, our income doubles, and the amount of money you get for the same job is less than twice as much. Your money still buys more than before, but not proportionally more; if it did, then we wouldn't have money left to pay new workers as population expands. (Rich people are also getting richer faster than the poor are getting richer, hence the growing income gap.)

If you think one job from 1950 provides the same quality of life as one job from 2016 then you're dreaming

It didn't. In 1950, the median American spent more than twice as much of their income (proportionally) on food and three times as much on clothing. Today, the median American spends more on healthcare than in 1950, and buys more healthcare; he spends slightly more on housing, but buys three times as much housing: 28% of income bought 984sqft in 1950, and 33% bought 2,300sqft.

In other words: Americans spend less than half as much of their paycheck on food, less than a third as much of their paycheck on clothing, and a bit more than a third as much of their paycheck per square foot of housing in 2013 as they did in 1950. They spent more on medical care because they now have the money to get medical services a 1950s family was unable to afford.

you keep thinking the Netflixes, Teslas, Ubers, and Air BnBs of the world are the answer to America's quality of life problems

These things are only available because Americans are able to spend less on food, shelter, clothing, utilities, and so forth. In case you haven't caught on: there's a giant hole in consumer spending from all those things people *need* getting cheaper.

That means a man in 1950 may have brought home $6,000/year and spent $3,600 on food, shelter, clothing, and utilities; a man in 2010 brought home $50,000 and spent $17,000 on food, shelter, clothing, and utilities. That leaves some $13,000 a 2010 household would have spent ... not being spent. That's what's buying Netflix, Uber, and all kinds of other shit--including better health care.

That number is also deceptive: our population is bigger, and that means that $50,000 is a smaller share of the total income than the $6,000 represents. In other words: if we divided all the money today by all the working Americans in 1950, they'd all get $100,000; instead, we have twice as many people, and we each get $50,000. We *still* spent a smaller portion of that $50,000 on living, and more on having a higher quality of life.

This blog post doesn't offer any solid answers, though some of the comments point to this being a transition from VC2013 for the windows build. There's also a reddit post of the build/link taking near an hour for a 24 core machine.

Thank you for making this argument. I personally use blood diamonds as an example but the principle is exactly the same: how something is produced matters, even if the end product doesn't differ in any other way.

There's a nice overview showing how Monsanto is actually so evil that even if GMO's are the bees knees, you still don't want to buy anything containing their stuff: Wordpress article

This is good to know. I am currently taking a digital marketing class and we are learning about Pagerank and how to grow your ranking organically. It seems this will make it much harder for SEO "experts" to do their jobs. Digital marketing is a fast growing field so school may have to rethink how they are teaching SEO. I started a blog to talk about the best digital marketing classes. Check it out if you have a minute. https://bestdigitalmarketingcl...

https://quickbookshelpsite.wor... QuickBooks error support phone number ,the file exist ask QuickBooks file error support1844-556-6315@intuit QuickBooks error the file exist, ask QuickBooks file error support, what is QuickBooks phone number QuickBooks help, support for QuickBooks, QuickBooks official support site, QuickBooks support website, intuit QuickBooks support website call QuickBooks, call intuit QuickBooks online technical support phone number QuickBooks customer support phone number QuickBooks customer service QuickBooks desktop support QuickBooks desktop support phone number QuickBooks enterprise phone number QuickBooks enterprise support phone number get QuickBooks support QuickBooks enterprise help and support QuickBooks not opening QuickBooks support for mac intuit 24 hour support qbo help phone number QuickBooks mac technical support QuickBooks not responding error QuickBooks error 15215 server not responding QuickBooks error support phone number QuickBooks payroll support phone number QuickBooks error code 80029c4a QuickBooks error 80070057 intuit phone help QuickBooks phone help QuickBooks premier customer support number 1(844)-203-1044@intuit QuickBooks error the file exist ask QuickBooks file error support what is QuickBooks phone number QuickBooks help support for QuickBooks official support site QuickBooks support website intuit QuickBooks support website call QuickBooks call intuit QuickBooks online technical support phone number QuickBooks customer support phone number QuickBooks customer service QuickBooks desktop support QuickBooks desktop support phone number QuickBooks enterprise phone number QuickBooks enterprise support phone number get QuickBooks support QuickBooks enterprise help and support QuickBooks not opening QuickBooks support for mac intuit 24 hour support help phone number QuickBooks mac technical support QuickBooks not responding error QuickBooks error 15215 server not responding QuickBooks error support phone number QuickBooks payroll support phone number QuickBooks error code 80029c4a QuickBooks error 80070057 intuit phone help QuickBooks phone help QuickBooks premier customer support nu1(844)-203-1044@intuit QuickBooks error the file exist, ask QuickBooks file error support, what is QuickBooks phone number QuickBooks help, support for QuickBooks, QuickBooks official support site, QuickBooks support website, intuit QuickBooks support website call QuickBooks, call intuit QuickBooks online technical support phone number QuickBooks customer support phone number QuickBooks customer service QuickBooks desktop support QuickBooks desktop support phone number QuickBooks enterprise phone number QuickBooks enterprise support phone number get QuickBooks support QuickBooks enterprise help and support QuickBooks not opening QuickBooks support for mac intuit 24 hour support qbo help phone number QuickBooks mac technical support QuickBooks not responding error QuickBooks error 15215 server not responding QuickBooks error support phone number QuickBooks payroll support phone number QuickBooks error code 80029c4a QuickBooks error 80070057 intuit phone help QuickBooks phone help QuickBooks premier customer support number 1(844)-203-1044@intuit QuickBooks error the file exist ask QuickBooks file error support what is QuickBooks phone number QuickBooks help support for QuickBooks official support site QuickBooks support website intuit QuickBooks support website call QuickBooks call intuit QuickBooks online technical support phone number QuickBooks customer support phone number QuickBooks customer service QuickBooks desktop support QuickBooks desktop support phone number QuickBooks enterprise phone number QuickBooks enterprise support phone number get QuickBooks support QuickBooks enterprise help and support QuickBooks not opening QuickBooks support for mac intuit 24 hour support help phone number QuickBooks mac technical support QuickBooks not responding error QuickBooks error 15215 server not responding Qu

Processed data shows less warming than raw data: https://criticalangleblog.file...

NOAA data is available here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-...

The NOAA adjustments have REDUCED the warming trend evident in the raw data. Here's a comparison of the two: https://criticalangleblog.file... .

Here's the NASA land based measurements compared to the satellite temperature reconstruction by skeptics Spencer and Christy: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/u...

Isn't Unity just a compiz plugin?

That's what they did. This blog has an excellent phortograph of a sheet printer. Whole teams of men would be employed to do the placement of articles, the assembly of printed text from individual characters and fonts

https://chrisseysgreatescape.w...

All the different characters of every font and size were stored in special rack drawers:

http://www.dreamstime.com/stoc...

http://www.examiner.com/slides...

So? You don't think these kind of changes happen overnight, do you?

Yes, if technology causes people to become be permanently pushed out of the labor force, I expect that to show up in some statistics over the span of decades.

Even if we did see that kind of effect, it wouldn't necessarily be bad: it would mostly mean people retiring earlier, kids getting more education, and parents spending more time with their families. You know, all the things that progressives say we should want. It's bizarre that the same people who say we should work less throw such a tizzy when people actually might achieve that.

Gross production income, then.

total GDP, per capita GDP, labor force participation rate

Both GDP and labor force participation rate have been steadily climbing over most of the last several decades. Labor force participation has been going down a bit since 2000, first because of demographics, then arguably because of Obama's welfare policies.

Sorry, but there is nothing in the data that suggests that people are permanently becoming unemployed because of automation. Long term unemployment is, in fact, much less of a problem in the US than in other countries.

Fail

Last December I took an extensive look at ASM.js and WebAssembly, from the point of view of an old-school C/C++ developer, and wrote an article about it: A look at asm.js and the future with WebAssembly.

The short of it is that while interesting, the JavaScript runtime both asm.js and WebAssembly run in impose such major limitations on the applications being written that its actual uses outside of game ports is fairly limited.

Not likely. My system is highly sensitive to wealth: once you've reached a certain level of wealth (which is predicate entirely on technological development--how much stuff can you actually produce per person?), you have enough to go around that tapping it for a basic-needs-level income is cheaper than most simple alternatives. You can compare the cost of welfare versus a competing Dividend against spending in 1950 and spending in 2003. The difference is more staggering when you realize the average 1950 house had 983sqft, and the average 2003 house had 2,300sqft: houses cost less than half as much per square foot in 2003, in terms of percentage of household income. You can see the Dividend I propose would have been a *huge* mistake in 1950: excessive cost and lowered effectiveness would bring economic ruin to the United States.

I'm actually starting to suspect that chart is wrong: food and clothing costs fell versus the average income, and inflation of food and clothing came slower than per-capita GDP growth, meaning that red bar should have started a lot higher than just 24% instead of humming along levelly. I only adjusted my Dividend for inflation, so the red bar assumes food and housing have gotten no cheaper. If I go back and find the appropriate numbers, that chart would look more like a Dividend requires 44% of our AGI in 1950 and 17% in 2013, while Welfare requires 2% in 1950 and 17.2% in 2013.

(If you're wondering: I did some quick math comparing the proportions of spending and used that to adjust the Dividend, then adjusted it proportionally. So food is 30% in 1950 and 13% in 2003? I adjusted the food budget in 2013 by multiplying it by 30/13. Did this for food, clothing, housing (per square foot); divided the result by the 2013 Dividend; and multiplied that proportion by the percentage in 1950. About 2.3 times as much is needed to live in 1950 than 2003; the ratio is probably bigger for 2013, but I'm not going to haggle over a percentage point.)

That means it might work fantastically in Texas, fail in California or Rhode Island, and operate in an unrelated manner on the Federal level. Further, it's an expansion of Social Security, and would require revoking OASDI taxes in that state while still paying half the OASDI benefit--which would break OASDI. Even if the Federal government let you do it, OASDI would become less-solvent if you piloted on a more-affluent state likely to succeed at a state-level Dividend, and more-solvent if you piloted on a less-affluent state likely to fail. If you don't revoke OASDI, you wind up with a tax system that applies some 6% more taxes to the working class while also holding products an additional 6% more costly thanks to payroll taxes; and OASDI stays everywhere else in the country, anyway, so all kinds of shipping, logistics, and other interstate commerce becomes expensive, lowering the buying power of individuals in the state piloting the Dividend.

In other words: it's approximately a guaranteed success at the Federal level, with a graceful failure mode (if it's not a success, it's a flesh wound that makes the country wince a little); it's approximately a guaranteed failure at the State level, with a disastrous failure mode that would probably not only leave everyone in that state much poorer and create a lot more homelessness and hunger, but also take down Social Security's retirement benefits by sheer force of insolvency. The more likely it is to succeed at the State level, the more likely the attempt is to break the rest of the United States.

That doesn't even begin to address logistics like residency: what happens when someone moves into or out of state? I managed to work that out on the National level; it's different on the State level, especially when

Replying to myself, but looks like there is already one project

Actually, Dr. Deanna Conners tracked down that graph's source and said: "... So it appears that much of the pre-1960 data were related to incendiary forest fires (per http://www.interfire.org/featu... , an incendiary fire is one that is set intentionally) and not to true wildfires. The post-1960 dataset that I analyzed only contained data for wildfires; the National Interagency Fire Center explicitly separates the wildfire data from the prescribed fire data. Hence, comparisons to earlier data may indeed be akin to comparing apples to oranges..."

Do you and your fellow President Trump denigrators realize that...

"...not many people know it, but the Fuhrer was a terrific dancer. And he could paint an entire apartment in one afternoon...TWO COATS!"

https://classicmovienight.file...

Not saying you are wrong, but here is some data for you!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
http://www.diplomacy.edu/resou...
https://larspsyll.wordpress.co...

1. Form a non-profit org whose purpose is to remind MS that they serve us, not the other way around

1a. Everybody send in all your money to make 2 and 3 happen

2. Create a superPAC to defeat pro-MS candidates. How-to:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/in-the-loop/wp/2014/04/10/how-to-start-a-super-pac-because-you-can/

3. Hire a lobbyist and get pro-user legislation written. How-to:
http://lobbying101.wordpress.com/recommendations/how-to-hire-a-lobbyist/

Or we can keep bitching...

There could be some other unforeseen consequences

For further reading - rapists enjoy consensual sex more than rape sex, and they enjoy violent rape sex the least. So much for power theories.

Even rapists say it was about sex, not power. Rapists rape for sex, same as bank robbers rob banks for money. Neither does it for power.

For some sustained period of your life, your calorifie intake exceeded your energy expenditure and you put on weight. You may have reduced your calorie intake since then and stabilised your weight gain, however you have not reduced your calorie intake and/or increased your energy expenditure sufficiently to /reduce/ your weight.

At core, it is that simple.

There are details that matter though. E.g., different foods are digested and metabolised in different ways, and can produce different hormonal and neurological responses. E.g., sugar is processed quickly, alters insulin levels quickly, and your brain tends to crave it - so it doesn't fill you up. Higher fibre, less processed, and lower glycaemic index foods tend to be better for weight control. They make you feel full for longer, take more energy to digest, and your body responds more slowly. E.g., fresh fruit is great in that respect. Indeed, even *fats* aren't a bad thing per se - probably better to get your energy from fats than sugary things. Particularly, unprocessed (esp, never significantly heated) plant fats and oils from nuts, legumes, avocados, etc., seem to be good for us.

Also, not all exercise is equal either. You see people in gyms doing weights trying to lose weight - completely wrong. Sustained, aerobic exercise using the biggest muscles in your body: your legs and your stomach muscles (for breathing - not sit-ups). Doesn't have to be super-hard either, you actually burn more fat at *lower* intensity aerobic exercise. At higher intensities of aerobic exercise (i.e. the kind you can only sustain for ten or twenty minutes), your body uses sugars as they're easier to convert to energy. If you reduce the intensity a bit, down to a level you could sustain for an hour+, you should get to a zone where your body can meet the energy demands by burning fat stores - and your body usually will prefer to burn fat stores when it can (carbohydrate stores being more limited and precious).

The biggest issue is finding time for exercise. I hate the gym myself. To get exercise, I need to build it into my life so it's simply unavoidable. For me, that means relying on a bicycle to get to/from work. Cycling has worked for others. E.g., see: https://theamazing39stonecycli... - he lost 170 kilogrammes (~376 lbs) in a couple of years, by cycling.

If you review your life, make changes to how and what you eat, and exercise, it is possible to get to a healthy weight. Not easy, but you can make it happen.

Without evaluating this particular statement about radiosondes, I don't place a whole lot of credibility in what he says. This is based on his reputation. It doesn't guarantee that Goddard is wrong, but it means his claims should be viewed with more skepticism than someone with a better record on climate change issues.

Let us keep in mind that Goddard's "Debunking" of AGW isn't even based on surface temperatures.

And what is interesting is that instead of him asking "Why", he just decided My dat is right, everyone elses is wrong."

Ain't necessarily so. http://journals.ametsoc.org/do...

Goddard has been thorougly debunked and quite often:

http://rankexploits.com/musing...

https://www.skepticalscience.c...

http://reallysciency.blogspot....

https://rhinohide.wordpress.co...

We can read an actual paper about his issue : https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibl...

Enough of this stuff. It won't change any deniers minds even if they continue to spew long debunked Proofs of their position.

Slashdot posts the latest global warming scare story for the idiot masses to consume like candy. If anyone wants to look at ALL the data, rather than just the politically correct release from the president, check out https://stevengoddard.wordpres...

I Call Bullshit https://stevengoddard.wordpres... From NOAAs own records. !