Slashdot Mirror

I could accept that you were talking about Australia

"Brownout" is low voltage or low current and is a failure mode unexpected in developed countries (because it tends to break stuff) and is not what happened in South Australia.

Yet another problem that shows how you could have spoken better. But you said it, not me. I wasn't going to be unnecessarily pedantic, as we're hardly discussing things on the particulars of the supply, but rather concerned with the origination of the issues.

It's a sign of incredibly poorly managed electricity infrastructure. Good supply or nothing is what is supposed to happen. Also comparing two events to the hundreds that happened during the Enron debacle alone is a bit much.

Actually, what happened in South Australia and what happened in California are quite comparable. A lot of the blame-game, including a deliberately misleading attack on "environmentalists" but a real causation that was significantly different than widely understood.

You can also find that happening in Alberta in Canada regarding its grid, and I believe, one of the South American countries, or maybe Central America.

Over 11 billion dollars

On payroll for prison workers? They could move a lot of goalposts on that money. I really do not appreciate being seen as so stupid and what's with the dishonesty?

If you don't want to be seen with disdain (though I would characterize you as misinformed and ignorant, rather than stupid or dishonest. But what is with your selective quoting? Here, quote the whole line:

You see, even if somebody articulated their own understanding in a flawed way, that doesn't actually mean that the expenses imposed by their actual situation with incarceration weren't real. There's plenty of discussion on the particulars. Over 11 billion dollars? That is quite a chunk of their budget.

I even provided sources. I'm talking about their corrections budget as a whole being a significant concern. But if you want, yes, we could focus on payrollA as the state does make the information available. As you can see, the CDCR spends a bit under half their budget directly on payroll, or over 4 billion dollars. That's certainly a large enough sum to be a matter of concern. And here's a funny editorial.

Mysteriously, however, it seems you still want to focus on your pointless complaint over the unnamed, uncited persons, you purport made some statements of some character that you deplore. Unfortunately, not having presented anything except your own judgement, it is impossible for anybody else to scrutinize them. At worst, you may have heard from somebody that spoke poorly, but a reasoned analysis certainly does establish that the business of corrections is still a matter of significant concern.

You apparently believe that you can simply declare something, and that other people will simply nod their heads in agreement at the obvious wisdom you are espousing. But to the contrary, your demonstrated opprobrium, especially towards the legislators of California (a not uncommon practice, as I have already noted), leads me to instead consider your statements more carefully and view them with significant disdain as you repetitively demonstrate a lack of intelligence and integrity.

Study this graph. Then realize you're an idiot. The reason the US didn't access shale reserves is because other reserves are cheaper. And it's cheaper to use existing setups rather than pay the initial ramp and 10 years it takes to start harvesting. Of course, in your fairy tale world, it's better to spend 10 years to ramp up production and pay to build the infrastructure for what everyone pretty much knew was a temporary (2 year max) spike, rather than just go with existing sources for most of the imports...

I remember posting about it back when VW diesel cheating was making rounds.

The article is mixing up two different things, and pretending that they are connected. Der Spiegel says that the automakers met in secret to discuss “the technology, costs, suppliers, and even the exhaust gas purification of its diesel vehicles." Then, separately, VW implemented a cheating system to dodge the emissions testing, with other automakers doing similar things, although to lesser degrees.

But the article implies that these two things are connected. Documentation, however, pretty well shows that the original plan of VW was to buy a license for the Mercedes "blueTec" technology, but they abandoned this plan when the Chief Operating Officer changed, who favored using their own developed technology (TDI). TDI didn't work as well as expected, necessitating the cheat.

Der Spiegel attempts to imply that the collusions were to agree on how to cheat, but from the evidence, it looks like the "collusion" was exactly the opposite of what Der Spiegel implies: the "collusion" was to collaborate on technology to avoid producing emissions, but when that collaboration fell apart, they shifted to cheating.

New York Times article here: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/1...
Wall Street Journal article here: https://www.wsj.com/articles/v...

The current president of the united states of america and a good portion of Congress would say similar things about the news sources you turn to. Or, if they don't, there's utterly no point in talking to you.

Assuming you're not insane, my point is it's the grey borders of our rights that are at the front lines, the ones we're least willing to stand up for, until rights we took for granted are under attack. With gawker out of the way, they're moving onto defending a clear scammer against deadspin. They're moving on up the ethical ladder.

Same principle as why the ACLU defends KKK protests, the NRA opposes checking if a person is insane before giving them a gun, and why pro-choice and pro-life groups focus on late term abortions.

So go ahead and cheer the demise of Gawker. After all, they were so very very mean to the poor defenseless billionaire and pro wrestler celebrity if you want. Just be clear you lost a tactical defense there (again, assuming you're not a blithering infowars nut).

Actually, you're making my point. These guys get a better deal that the average consumer. Hell, Amazon gets a big break on shipping with the US Postal Service. https://www.wsj.com/articles/w...
That means that they are using the infrastructure but not paying the same for it as everyone else. Net Neutrality isn't going to change that. And that's only half of the equation. The high usage consumers aren't paying their fair share either in most cases because data rate caps are high enough that most people in big cities never hit them.

You realize it's perfectly possible to show a loss on your financials and still be making money, right? Especially when your sinking money into a new factory. That's why you ALSO need to look at the balance sheet.

Not when you follow GAAP. It's highly defined, and you cannot "ignore" capital costs - that's why they are amortized over time. The only way that Tesla is "making money" is when you use non-GAAP accounting and ignore expenses that other car companies do not ignore. You may increase your net worth by "investing" more than you actually make (meaning - you take loans to invest, or in the case of Tesla you sell more shares of stock, getting loans from shareholders), but your income is still negative. Net worth may increase, but income is negative. Flat out, full stop.

Hey, my net income would look a LOT better if I didn't have to actually "recognize" my mortgage payments or my health care insurance premiums! A solid $3K per month change in my stated monthly cash flow! Of course, I can't do that - that's not accepted. Even if most of it is going to build total "net worth", my cash flow still takes that $3K/month hit. Hey, why don't I go get a $50K/month mortgage - well beyond my monthly income - and claim I still have the same income, I'm still cash-flow positive (no loss - profit!) whilst building more net asset value? Can't do that... That's called fraud.

Tesla was slapped by the SEC for it's non-GAAP shenanigans, and now reports GAAP numbers. All of which show Tesla losing money. As is correct. Corporate value - net assets - may be increasing as cash flow is spent on factories, but that does not change the fact: they are spending more money than they are bringing in, they have a negative earnings per share.

You mean like the sudden death of Republican operative Peter W. Smith, who had a direct connection to Russia, 10 days after he spoke to the press?

I'm pretty sure that the Chicago public school system is full of shit schools.

You forget, before becoming President, Barrack Obama worked to improve the Chicago Public School System, along with his neighborhood domestic terrorist Bill Ayers - they should be palaces of higher learning!

He assumes that because, like many economic illiterates ... Real economies don't work that way.

You're quite assured about a profession that its own members admit has failed us (citation below). "Real economists" have assured us that free trade is our friend, that increased productivity is how we get more prosperity, and many other things that sound convincing but have not delivered. And regardless of how far our standard of living drops they preach the same. Free trade has lowered the standards of living by being a race to the bottom, as anyone with a good dose of sense can see. Much the same way that supply and demand would dictate that importing masses of workers by definition devalues the existing workers. Lastly although increased productivity is good in theory if the fruits of that aren't shared then to those left out it's the same as no gains in productivity. But what do I know, I still think all lives matter so I'm just a hopeless deplorable.

Citations:

https://www.theguardian.com/co...

https://www.wsj.com/articles/e...

In short, no. The USPS depends on a certain percentage of spam to exist. They also wouldn't exist without the deal to take small packages from UPS and FedEx. Without a federally-granted monopoly on delivering to your mailbox, the USPS would have gone away already, and good riddance.

You just told me that the USPS delivers to people to whom UPS and FedEx don't deliver.

What? No, no I did not,

Actually, you did, and you repeated it again in your comment. But, you're right: turns out that you apparently didn't actually know that the reason that UPS and FedEX use the US post office to deliver is because it's cheaper for them.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/u...

and your lack of reading comprehension is appalling. UPS and FedEx did deliver to those addresses, and they still do, but they are now required to hand the majority of their small packages off to the USPS.

They are "required" to do so because they have a contract to do so. They have a contract to do so because it's cheaper. It's cheaper because the USPS is required to do deliveries.

This handoff typically adds a day on to delivery times, so it harms the customer directly even in cases where the package is subsequently delivered competently.

It may "harm the customer," but UPS and FedEX do it because it is cheaper.

On a personal level enough that you keep trying to get the last word.

The one time it got personal about having the last word, it turned out that a Slashdot comment thread can only have 256 comments before the reply button disappears.

Spare us the bullshit about ad revenues, too - an "all-digital" WSJ subscription costs $200 a year, or, as the WSJ likes to say, "Less than $4 a week!" In no reality are you making significant money from ad revenues.

I'm paying $30 per month for the WSJ "all digital" subscription. The introductory rate for a 12-month subscription is $278 with a 30% discount.

https://buy.wsj.com/wsjusjune17/?inttrackingCode=aaqpn5h3&icid=WSJ_ON_SPG_ACQ_NA

No country will give you Visa when they know about your uncivilized Caste system http://blogs.wsj.com/indiareal...

So, all the examples I gave are not examples because reasons. Ok. The NY Times was one example and they have, more than once, have a title and a narrative of Russian collusion yet in one sentence hidden in the article say there is no evidence. That is disingenuous to me and the article that was discussed by Comey and Risch are of a similar narrative crafting. One sentence is contradicting 90% of the article is not honest journalism. CNN has been caught lying through omission and potentially other narrative crafting measures, yet you still trust them. Ethics and standards for journalism has been left behind such as the Goldwater rule. It isn't hard to find examples of a lack in ethics for journalists if you spend a few minutes looking. https://www.psychologytoday.co...
http://www.independent.co.uk/n...
character assassination from the WSJ is a thing beyond Trump. https://www.wsj.com/articles/d...

What about anonymous unverifiable sources, how much should we rely on them for the truth?

Sure, they are not perfect but I also understand that it is standard practice to not let emotions get in the way of honest reporting (one reason why you don't interview a loved one), Yet, for Trump that is different because hatred doesn't cloud the judgement or reporting, apparently. There are too many examples I could list. You may disagree with them but it is not a delusion to see the media failing at their job. Everyone understands that except you are willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and chastise me because I am not.

Honestly, If you don't see the crap that MSM have been doing then I don't know what to make of you other than you agree with their bias and lack of ethics and standards.

So Obama first for arming terrorist groups in the middle east right?

The Buck Stops Everywhere Else

Trump undermines his own travel ban and Justice Department.

Some people with a propensity for self-destructive behavior can't seem to help themselves, President Trump apparently among them. Over the weekend and into Monday he indulged in another cycle of Twitter outbursts and pointless personal feuding that may damage his agenda and the powers of the Presidency.

Mr. Trump first expressed solidarity with the British people after the London terror attack, before managing to convert the mass murder into a referendum on his favorite subject, Donald J. Trump. He assailed London Mayor Sadiq Khan for supposedly minimizing the threat, though what Mr. Khan said was that there was no reason to be alarmed by an enlarged police presence after the rampage. "Pathetic excuse," Mr. Trump called it.

World leaders who stoop to attack municipal politicians in foreign cities look small, not that we can recall a precedent. If Theresa May has an opinion about Bill de Blasio she's kept it to herself, though the Prime Minister was compelled to say Mr. Khan is "doing a good job. It's wrong to say anything else."

In a humiliating coup de grace, the mayor's office put out a statement saying he "has more important things to do than respond" to Mr. Trump's social-media insults. The U.S. Commander in Chief also has better uses of his time than making himself look foolish.

Mr. Trump's more consequential eruption was against Mr. Trump's Justice Department. He was evidently responding to a segment on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" about his executive order temporarily suspending immigration entry from six countries with a history of terrorism.

"People, the lawyers and the courts can call it whatever they want," Mr. Trump wrote. "I am calling it what we need and what it is, a TRAVEL BAN!" Mr. Trump added that "The Justice Dept. should have stayed with the original Travel Ban, not the watered down, politically correct version they submitted to S.C."

These comments are reckless on multiple levels. The original blunderbuss order was rolled out on the Friday night of Mr. Trump's first week as President with zero public explanation and little internal vetting. White House staffers from the Steve Bannon wing preferred the stun-grenade approach, but Mr. Trump's legal team convinced him to sign a legally bulletproof revision in March because they preferred to win in court.

The new order wasn't "watered down" on substance but did make pragmatic exceptions for, say, permanent residents with green cards and military translators. Had the White House done such legal due diligence in the first place, the travel ban might not have become a political bonfireâ"not least because the President enjoys wide constitutional and statutory discretion over immigration and national security.

If Mr. Trump's action is legal on the merits, he seems to be angry that his lawyers are trying to vindicate the rule of law. Attorney General Jeff Sessions would be justified if he resigned, and this is merely the latest incident in which Mr. Trump popping off undermined his own lawyers. The White House spent days explaining that the President fired James Comey on the counsel of Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein, only for Mr. Trump to tell an interviewer that he planned to dismiss the FBI director in any case. Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly has also suggested that the temporary visa shutdown is not an "immigration ban."

If this pattern continues, Mr. Trump may find himself running an Administration with no one but his family and the Breitbart staff. People of talent and integrity won't work for a boss who undermines them in public without thinking about the consequences. And whatever happened to the buck stops here?

Mr. Trump is also sabotaging the legitimate legal basis for the travel ban, and the stakes are bigger than the ban itself, which we think is counterproductive and unnecessary. He is exercising core

Reverse discrimination is like unicorns. Often spoken about but never seen.

And that was in a thread that started with

New York has a law preventing male daycare workers from changing diapers.

Jesus H Fucking Christ you're dense. Did your head crack the concrete floor you were dropped on when born? Does your skull bend light?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/w...

On May 19th, WSJ published an editorial AGAINST Net Neutrality. Now, they want a provider to lean over backwards to give them better access to customers, for "fairness". LOL hypocrites.

The doc is indeed legit: https://www.wsj.com/articles/u...

We watch sports to get a break from politics, not to get more politics shoved down the throat. Would be great if people across the political spectrum could enjoy it together.
But they don't get it, not even WSJ seems to understand why people don't want to mix the two.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/t...

ESPN became a cable-television giant by offering wall-to-wall sports, so naturally the channel has increasingly chosen to offer political commentary. In a remarkable coincidence, its viewership has been declining. ESPN’s shrinking audience triggered layoffs of about 100 employees this week.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/t...

We watch sports to get a break from politics, not to get more politics shoved down the throat. Would be great if people across the political spectrum could enjoy it together.
But they don't get it, not even WSJ seems to understand why people don't want to mix the two.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/t...

ESPN became a cable-television giant by offering wall-to-wall sports, so naturally the channel has increasingly chosen to offer political commentary. In a remarkable coincidence, its viewership has been declining. ESPN’s shrinking audience triggered layoffs of about 100 employees this week.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/t...

The top three vehicles sold in the US are full sized pickup trucks. Then 2 suvs. You have to get to number 5 before you get the first car, a Camry. And Truck have less impact on CAFE then cars, so the do bend the rules. And hence, the $70k pickups! http://online.wsj.com/mdc/publ...

Indonesia? No. Yeah, they have population, but no infrastructure, little education, and they have their own problems as one of the largest Muslim populations in the world. https://www.wsj.com/articles/t...

This is what researchers from the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago (EPIC) and the Associated Press—NORC Center for Public Affairs Research at the University of Chicago set out to better understand. Their nationally representative poll found that 43% of Americans were unwilling to pay an additional $1 per month in their electricity bill to combat climate change—and a large majority were unwilling to pay $10 per month. That’s despite the fact that a whopping 77% said they think climate change is happening and 65% think it is a problem the government should do something about. Support plummets as the amount of the fee increases.’

This is an upside-down result. The best available science tells us that Americans should be willing to pay considerably more, because the damages from climate change are so great—including to them personally. If we use the federal government’s estimate of the combined social cost of carbon pollution and apply it to the typical U.S. household’s electricity consumption on today’s national grid mix, the average household faces damages of almost $20 per month. Yet just 29% of respondents said they would be willing to pay at least that much.

https://blogs.wsj.com/experts/...

That's why, for example, judges and jurors are sought to be impartial.

There you are! Justifying Trump's dismissing a judge as "biased" because he was of Mexican descent...Racist, racist, racist!

Of course, attacking a judge because of his ancestry is indeed, racist, and Trump's admissionsa actually showed his own realization of the bias and animus he had been demonstrating.

That is what Trump chose to do. He picked a deliberate course of racial antagonism to attack a judge in a lawsuit where it was immaterial. In the media. Nothing more. Remember, Trump University? It didn't get filed as a request for recusal in court, it was merely engaging in political aggrandizement. You don't get a judge to act in a case just because you go on CNN and pout like a crybaby.

You do know this, right? Trump was whining about a judge. He chose to do it with an included racist spin, so it only reflects on Trump. Not the judge. In the realm of public opinion. At least, until it becomes relevant to a legal matter. Now personally, I blame Trump's political advisers, who should have at least made Trump temper his remarks, but he still has a problem with running his mouth. Or twitter fingers, as the case may be. But he's not the only one with a problem with that in his administration. That sort of thing can reflect on you.

Which was why when somebody takes your statements, applies them to you, in a legal case, and submits them to court, well, then you have a judge rule on it.

Now if you want to see a judge who got in trouble because of their own actions, let's try one. That's one where a

Yeah, that's a cute story.

But banks are making all-time record profits.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/u...

The way Tata uses H1-B is a negative, depressing wages, and exploiting workers, IMO. However, H1-Bs when used properly (as has been the case in most places I've worked) is beneficial to everyone. When we get the best/brightest talent from abroad, the results include:

- Making the US more competitive, while hampering our competition
- More job creation: the highly talented H1-B users I've worked with have started many companies, creating more jobs than they take.
- Increasing wages: by increasing the demand for coders and engineers, they've helped fuel a pretty nice wage increase curve in Silicon Valley

There's tons of evidence that the H1-B program has created lots of jobs around here. Immigrants who started on H1-Bs are over-represented as company founders, including many of the ones fueling the tech recovery. Of course, when abused, H1-Bs do exactly what you said. I'm all for ending the abuse, while protecting the program overall. It would be a mistake to reduce the number of top-talent H1-Bs issued at this point in our economy. When the economy goes south, that's a different story.

Slashdot: Only 36 Percent of Indian Engineers Can Write Compilable Code Says Study

India Graduates Millions, but Too Few Are Fit to Hire

Only 7 per cent engineering graduates employable: What's wrong with India's engineers?

BTW, what does this have to do with the price of Apple's stock?

I'm guessing the grandparent was intended as a reply to my first link here, since on slashdot's front page it's right below this story on Apple right now.

In the U.S., he actually bet against the female candidate.

Not at all! Once again, Illiberals fail to recognize their own. To wit, Hilllary Clinton:

• Offered Russia a "Reset"
• Routed billions of dollars of investments — and technology transfers — into Russia's high tech
• Forgave Putin's aggression against Georgia — and lifted all sanctions imposed for same — thus practically inviting Putin to repeat the same thing in Ukraine, as predicted
• Made vast amounts of proprietary Department of State information available to foreign intelligence agencies

Of course, Putin would've loved for her to retain — and elevate — her stature...

Sounds like they have pretty strong probable cause, so this would be more along the lines of withholding evidence / refusing a search warrant than the 5th.

I mean, this seems like the proper way to do it rather than to, I don't know, try to force phone manufacturers to unlock it for them...

Can I quote you on this in about four years when he gets re-elected?

Sure. Just remember that futurists don't predict the future.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/think-like-a-futurist-to-be-prepared-for-the-totally-unexpected-1483272006

The Wall Street Journal had a recent article about people who are least concerned about outliving their retirement savings are most likely to be a financial risk. The days of retiring at 65 and dropping dead at 70, which was the reality when Social Security got set up in the 1930's, are long gone..

https://blogs.wsj.com/experts/2017/02/17/the-people-least-concerned-about-outliving-their-savings-may-be-most-at-risk-financially/

Solar is "cheap", if you don't count the enormous subsidies or storage necessary to make it useful. It may look attractive by $/W peak output, but intermittent power is nearly useless, and only available a small fraction of the time. Developing countries don't have a working grid in place to fill in the gaps of unreliable wind and solar, so they choose fossil fuels instead which can produce energy on demand, every day.

If renewables were genuinely economical, advocates wouldn't have to resort to reporting record days or hours. Nor would it be necessary to funnel funds from the poor to build out capacity.

I know a game reviewer that does this when truth does not match marketing, ding, ding, ding, (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PmTyOKAtN0). So here is a Google search https://www.google.com.au/sear.... So the top dominating return is not just an answer on no, it is a redirection to https://www.wsj.com/articles/s..., so was that redirection done for free or is it a paid advert that totally dominates the first page of search results. In reality what would I have really wanted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... but oh know, where there is a buck to be made, lies will prosper, unless actions are taken to prevent it.

So how long before the same search scam is used to corrupt elections, with promotions and redirections. It is for sale, you can buy it, for any kind of marketing, including political, elections for sale to the highest bidder. In the age of the internet where all political information in the US could be distributed neutrally by the US congressional library, https://www.loc.gov/, should private for profit political advertising be banned (all the speeches, all the empty promises on record, you want it, you download it, no more public for votes face and private for profits face).

Trump's 2005 tax return leaked. Seriously, are you going fill Rachel Maddow on this?

... either does this or is making provisions for doing so with two VLAN connections to their supplied WiFi hubs.

A relative of mine lives in West Seattle, on a hill overlooking some city property that has become a notorious hobo jungle. Homeless advocates have been pushing for Internet access in some of these locations. His reactions was "No way am I making my back yard more attractive for the bums. Please help me replace the CL router with one I can secure."

But as a percent of income the rich buy less, thus paying less taxes. That's why sales taxes are considered regressive, hitting the poor and middle class more.

For the most part, this is simply due to the tax on investment income (capital gains) being taxed at a lower rate than income you make from say your actual job. The more you have, the more you're likely investing it, the more it becomes the largest part of your income. And please note, I'm discussing "long term capital gains", not short term. For anyone interested, there's a good article explaining the rates here...
https://www.fool.com/retiremen...

NYT does a good historical story on it here http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01...

So, the question becomes, does it make sense to have a lower rate on investment income? There are arguments against it, primarily focused on "fairness", and how the govt. could increase it's tax base. The opposing side argues that it's better for the economy as a whole to keep the lower rates...
http://www.nola.com/business/i...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/h...

I'm sorry, I assumed anyone discussing gender and pay would be informed on the relevant science. Two supporting links from the last two years since you don't seem to be up on the conversation; you can find dozens if not hundreds on the same subject.
Constrained by Emotion: Women, Leadership, and Expressing Emotion in the Workplace
"For instance, women incur social and economic penalties for expressing masculine-typed emotions because they violate proscriptions against dominance for women. At the same time, when women express female-typed emotions, they are judged as overly emotional and lacking emotional control, which ultimately undermines women’s competence and professional legitimacy."

The Price Women Leaders Pay for Assertiveness—and How to Minimize It
"To test this popular view, my colleague Larissa Tiedens, of Stanford’s Graduate School of Business, and I recently synthesized 71 studies testing reactions to people who behave assertively. We found that women, on average, were disparaged more than men for identical assertive behaviors. Women were particularly penalized for direct, explicit forms of assertiveness, such as negotiating for a higher salary or asking a neighbor to turn down the music. Dominance that took a verbal form seemed especially tricky for women, compared with men making identical requests."

"Wednesday’s change means Mr. Bannon is no longer part of the NSC. He is still permitted to attend meetings but won’t automatically be invited to each one."
"Bannon is still permitted to go to NSC meetings."
Try again http://online.wsj.com/public/r...
Also he only attended ONE meeting before, so this really doesn't do anything.

Right. Where are all the successful lawsuits, then? Nowhere? Got it.

Yeah, you sure as hell got "it". Do they pay you per bullshit post, or a lump sum monthly?

Anyway, here's one case, how many more do you want? Well, for good meassire, here's one more. I could go on, but you will pretend you didn't lose another argument. So why bother.

Oh, what the heck, here's one they settled after years of refusing to pay royalties Suck on it, SamsungCon.

Like the Netflix vs. Comcast spat?

That was resolved (correctly) BEFORE REGULATION. It is the proof that regulation was not needed.

Seemed like it suddenly resolved itself once the new rules came out...

Netflix/Comcast issues was resolved long before.

(June 12th 2015 was when NN rules went into effect, the "Netflix Resolved" article is from Feb 23, 2014).

I can understand how you might think that given how misleading most NN advocates have been.

Add in the children, and the variously-disabled, and otherwise incapacitated for work (e.g. incarcerated), and you're probably looking at 50% of the population which will be removed from that 7 billion figure when trying to figure out a labour force pool.

Another way to look at population is through the Social Security program. In the 1930's, there was 19 workers for every retiree, and most retirees on average died within five years of retirement. In the 2030's, there will be two workers for every retiree, and most retirees will outlive their retirement funds by 20 to 40 years. People who aren't concern about outliving their retirements are more likely at financial risk.

http://blogs.wsj.com/experts/2017/02/17/the-people-least-concerned-about-outliving-their-savings-may-be-most-at-risk-financially/

is far better than using constructions like "his or her"

because...? I know the answer already, but it's the point. The presumed acceptance that transgenderism is the new normal is obscene.

I loosely work with a transgender woman (formerly a him, for those not experienced with the terminology) and they (it's much easier to use "they" here instead of trying to determine the right pronoun) had their reassignment surgery a few months ago. I do not speak to this person regularly because they're across the country, but what struck me during our last conversation was that they still struggled with becoming a woman and accepting who they were. In fact, it was the only thing they chose to talk about (I did not speak negatively about it to them or any coworker, since it's their life).

To be very clear: this person now looks like a woman and speaks like a woman. Had I not known them before the reassignment, I would not have known.

This experience, combined with past medical evidence (paywalled) and experiences, reaffirmed my perspective that being transgender is a mental disorder. This person, who had gone as far as they could surgically go with it, still cannot accept their body. It was the exact same reaction that someone with an eating disorder experiences: an unattainable body image. It's unfortunate that people are being forced to accept it rather than to strongly push these individuals into therapy: it's literally crazy to think that your DNA made a mistake unless you are XXY.

Original article: https://www.wsj.com/articles/e... (WSJ paywall)

Other coverage: http://www.businessinsider.com...

They apparently have in the order of $200 million in cash on hand. Plenty to settle those lawsuits.

Most baby boomers don't have their retirement in stocks anymore -- any decent financial manager would have converted the bulk into more stable investments long ago.

Not after the Great Recession. Some seniors have 95% of their portfolio in the stock market to juice returns.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/stocks-have-tripled-since-crisis-but-low-rates-are-still-squeezing-savers-1488969009

The last time that you could get a decent permanent job without solid skills and education was the 70s. But they weren't easy jobs - things like auto plant worker. And many of those jobs vanished in the 80s. Today's WSJ has an article why... basically people got progressively more expensive, while automation got less expensive. The "gig economy" is no different than what people did before about it... Amway or Fuller, or holding Tupperware parties, or starting a lawn care or housecleaning service, or starting your own cab/limo company before cities regulated and medallioned that option off the list. The unfortunate part is that we fall for the sob stories, the anecdotes of emotion, and then close off another rung on the upward-mobility ladder in the name of protecting the people that, as a result, are held down more firmly.

Very likely it is an injunction to stop them using the technology until the court case is settled. That is pretty standard in many intellectual property lawsuits. Such as: https://www.wsj.com/articles/S...

This is a way of saying "you stole our ideas, so stop using them and continuing to rack up damages".

Many 401(k)s, (which are transportable and allow the owner to make choices) offer fixed income options (although for most, low fee index funds would be better), [...]

How much income does a fixed income generates in a near 0% interest rate environment? Not much. A recent Wall Street Journal article featured a 82-year-old retiree with a retirement account that's 95% in stocks because he wanted to juice the returns. Under conventional wisdom, he should have been 82% in fixed income and 18% in stocks (100 - 82 = 18). Or, since retirees are living longer and risk outliving their retirement funds, 62% fixed income and 38% stocks (120 - 82 = 38). The days of 15% interest on CDs are long gone.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/stocks-have-tripled-since-crisis-but-low-rates-are-still-squeezing-savers-1488969009

[...] and many pension plans (which the beneficiary has no control over) have gone bankrupt due to mismanagement or lack of funding.

Pension plans are covered by federal pension insurance. Who will cover the "mismanagement of lack of funding" by individuals and/or a market crash caused by Wall Street players trying to break the casino as they did in the Great Recession?

Pensions are, however, an excellent way of locking employees into the company store, as they are often structured to offer higher rewards for longer servitude.

My late father got his pension through the union. Although he worked for three generations of bricklayers for 50 years, he worked for three sole proprietorships and a corporation. The bricklayer-owners also got their pension through the union. Everyone had a comfortable retirement because they didn't have to worry about a stock market crash.

Do you think banks favor Dodd-Frank or oppose it? The big banks like it, because it helps keep down their potential competitors. Democrats passed that one.

China has total control of the North.

I don't know what you mean by this. How are they controlling them? There are clear strains in the relationship between the two countries, as I linked in the article above. Here is more information for you to digest. Claiming that N Korea is completely controlled by China is a horrible misunderstanding of the relationship.