I actually see the value of LinkedIn to SalesForce. There is a potential synergy (I know a much overused word) there that brings benefit to SalesForce, their customers and some percentage of LinkedIn users. With Microsoft buying LinkedIn all of the benefits go to Microsoft (and possibly a fraction of their customers). LinkedIn users gain nothing from Microsoft buying LinkedIn.
My understanding from other stories is that the money came from investors in the 1MDB fund...and the profits were paid out to specific people, who may or may not have also been investors.
My primary criticism of the MPG numbers is that gallons per 100 miles would be a more useful number (someone else pointed this out on slashdot a few years ago). At better than 10 MPG/10 GP100M, the MPG number is perfectly adequate. Once the MPG rating gets over 20 MPG it becomes deceptive. The cost of gas difference between 5 MPG and 10 MPG is greater than the cost of gas difference between 10 MPG and 40 MPG, but most people would value the latter jump more than the former. That is, they would be more likely to buy the 40 MPG vehicle over the 10 MPG vehicle than they would be to buy the 10 MPG vehicle over the 5 MPG vehicle (in both cases assuming that the vehicles were otherwise similar...not something that is likely to happen). Or to put this another way, people are more likely to buy a 40 MPG vehicle over a 30 MPG vehicle than a 10 MPG vehicle over a 5 MPG vehicle.
The problem here is that people conflate capitalism with free market. You are correct that it is not socialism that is causing this. It is socialism's brother. fascism that is doing this.
In either case, it has nothing to do with capitalism as most people understand the term. Most people consider the terms "free market economy" and "capitalism" to be synonyms, not realizing that "capitalism" is Karl Marx's term for a straw man economic system that does not exist.
That's an interesting theory. It has one fatal flaw. every time one of those "tax cuts for the rich" got passed, the percentage of federal revenue paid by the top 1% went up.
Except that the "religious right" was beginning to accept the idea of domestic partnership when the activists said that was not good enough.
In order to get where you said you think things should have gone, you need move one step at a time. The first step was to establish the concept of domestic partnership. I am firmly convinced that the reason the activists did not want domestic partnerships was because they knew it would leave it up to churches (and other organizations) to decide how they wanted to define marriage. They did not want to allow churches the option to define marriage.
Except of course that before "marriage equality" was imposed by the courts many states were passing domestic partnership laws. Domestic partnership laws solved all of those issues. The advantage of domestic partnership laws was that they were not limited to people in a sexual relationship. This meant that two people could share a house and other things without being sexual partner and have all of those benefits as well.
In time, it is likely that such laws would have made it feasible to remove marriage laws, with their religious overtones, from the books altogether.
More importantly, it suggests that the driver may have THOUGHT that the autopilot was on. Actually, it suggests a secondary point. The autopilot should NOT turn off until the car is either stopped or it detects that the driver is controlling the vehicle (hands on the wheel).
Tell that to the family of the young man he had flown across the country for medical treatment when commercial airlines would not allow him to board their planes.
The mistake all of the anti-Trump arguments make is that they attack Trump "Why trust Trump?" because he is not a proven liar and hypocrite like most politicians. Very few people support Trump because of his virtues, whatever they are. They support him because they are convinced that his opponents have NO virtues, while Trump appears to at least have a few.
OneDrive? OneDrive? I know I heard that somewhere, but I can't quite place it. Was that the one where Microsoft offered to store and scan your files in order to sell information about you to advertisers?
Listen just because MS renamed Internet Explorer does not mean that it isn't still Internet Explorer. Heck, the summary even admits it by calling Edge one of the "Big Four" browsers. The only way Edge qualifies as one of the big four is if you consider it the next version of Internet Explorer. If you consider it a separate browser it is number 5 (behind, Chrome, Internet Explorer, Firefox, and Safari).
Sorry, that doesn't work because the 66+% was of the WORKING AGE population and so is the 62+%. The baby boomers who are retiring are no longer part of the working age population.
"There is only one universe" is disprovable. The idea of multiverses is not. Therefore the first is scientific while the latter is not. The other two I am not sure about.
Well, the interesting thing is that UKIP did that in the last election and when it started to look like UKIP might win the election, David Cameron promised to renegotiate Britain's relationship with the EU AND hold a referendum on leaving. That promise was the only reason the Conservative Party won the election.
No, I don't mistake "adding nuance and bringing the vision to life" for who creates the vision. Authors who write novels create characters. Playwrights and screenwriters give us lines and actions, the character is created primarily as a collaboration between the director and the actor. I have acted in many plays with good directors and bad directors. My opinion about the role which the director plays in shaping the character comes primarily from my experience becoming the character. On the other hand, my opinion about the role which the actor plays in shaping the character comes from watching OTHER actors figure out over the course of rehearsals why their character would deliver the lines he delivers. In particular, this came about in a performance where the writer described the characters he created, which bore no resemblance to the characters in the performance. The other thing which influences that is the plays I have been in where one of the actors changed.
I will repeat, while I have experienced creating the character as an actor, I am well aware that my perception of what was going on in those cases could be distorted. However, I have witnessed two different people play the same role with the same script and director as completely different characters. Now in those cases, the director knew the personality of the replacement actor and worked with them from day one to shape their character to fit into the performance with the other characters in the performance.
You have clearly NEVER acted in any performance worth the merit of being called acting. There are three people who determine the nature of the character, in order of significance: Director, Actor, Writer. The first two will switch depending on how good the Director and/or the Actor are. If the Director and the Actor are both very good they will become co-equal in creating the actual character. If, by some chance, the Writer is the most significant in creating the character, the character will be two-dimensional and wooden.
In which case, you should consider them beneficial for reminding you who the incumbent is, then you have no excuse for voting for them.
You do know the first rule of voting, don't you? "When in doubt, vote the Ins Out"
Or to put it another way, you should either vote for or against (usually against) the incumbent. Never vote against the challenger. The only time you should vote for the incumbent is if the incumbent has done something which gives you a compelling reason to vote for them. If the incumbent has not done something which makes you an enthusiastic supporter, vote against them.
You mean to tell me that you do not know someone, or of someone, who cuts glass? In my area, there are 5 to 10 professional glass cutters.
So, you buy a mirror larger than you need, take it to a glass professional and have them cut it to size.
Just more subtly planned obsolescence. While mirrors may wear out or break, it is simple enough to make a replacement. When these cameras wear out/break it is going to require a factory to make a replacement.
Battery/electric appears to be about to become a viable alternative to gasoline for automobiles, but in order to truly determine viability we need about a 10 year window (maybe 20). Currently, the trip length on a "full tank" for electric vehicles is too short considering the time it takes to recharge the batteries*. Both sides of that have been steadily improving over the last few years, so that problem seems to be in the process of getting solved. However, until there is more general adoption of electric vehicles we will not know if there are unanticipated problems which limit their viability.
* there are a significant number of special use cases where that is no longer true, but for the majority of people who need an automobile it is not there yet (many of those who do not have a problem with this would be adequately served by public transportation).
None of those compare with Buchanan, who basically created the situation which led to the Civil War. By his lack of leadership, and appeasement of the most militant of the slavery supporters, Buchanan made the Civil War inevitable.
There is reason to believe that Obama may have set us up for a second Civil War. Time will tell. I believe that historians of the distant future will consider Obama to be either the last President of the Constitutional Republic, or the first President of whatever they call our new government (which is no longer bound by the Constitution).
I think it is worth taking special note of the fact that men whose voices were masked as women than did men with unmasked voices. That data point contributes a key understanding: women do not interview as well as men (I would agree with your guess about self-confidence as a major contributor to that) and interviewers, being aware of this fact, give them a few extra "points" for being a woman.
Despite what those in the grievance industry would say if this went the other way (if men were bad at interviewing and interviewers gave them a few extra points to compensate), there is nothing wrong with this (as long as it is not written into law). I suspect that given a man and woman who would equally fill the position, the man would SEEM in an interview to be the better fit because women, in general, do not do as good of a job at presenting themselves in interviews.
Slashdot Mirror
I actually see the value of LinkedIn to SalesForce. There is a potential synergy (I know a much overused word) there that brings benefit to SalesForce, their customers and some percentage of LinkedIn users. With Microsoft buying LinkedIn all of the benefits go to Microsoft (and possibly a fraction of their customers). LinkedIn users gain nothing from Microsoft buying LinkedIn.
My understanding from other stories is that the money came from investors in the 1MDB fund...and the profits were paid out to specific people, who may or may not have also been investors.
My primary criticism of the MPG numbers is that gallons per 100 miles would be a more useful number (someone else pointed this out on slashdot a few years ago). At better than 10 MPG/10 GP100M, the MPG number is perfectly adequate. Once the MPG rating gets over 20 MPG it becomes deceptive. The cost of gas difference between 5 MPG and 10 MPG is greater than the cost of gas difference between 10 MPG and 40 MPG, but most people would value the latter jump more than the former. That is, they would be more likely to buy the 40 MPG vehicle over the 10 MPG vehicle than they would be to buy the 10 MPG vehicle over the 5 MPG vehicle (in both cases assuming that the vehicles were otherwise similar...not something that is likely to happen). Or to put this another way, people are more likely to buy a 40 MPG vehicle over a 30 MPG vehicle than a 10 MPG vehicle over a 5 MPG vehicle.
The problem here is that people conflate capitalism with free market. You are correct that it is not socialism that is causing this. It is socialism's brother. fascism that is doing this. In either case, it has nothing to do with capitalism as most people understand the term. Most people consider the terms "free market economy" and "capitalism" to be synonyms, not realizing that "capitalism" is Karl Marx's term for a straw man economic system that does not exist.
That's an interesting theory. It has one fatal flaw. every time one of those "tax cuts for the rich" got passed, the percentage of federal revenue paid by the top 1% went up.
Except that the "religious right" was beginning to accept the idea of domestic partnership when the activists said that was not good enough.
In order to get where you said you think things should have gone, you need move one step at a time. The first step was to establish the concept of domestic partnership. I am firmly convinced that the reason the activists did not want domestic partnerships was because they knew it would leave it up to churches (and other organizations) to decide how they wanted to define marriage. They did not want to allow churches the option to define marriage.
The reason a compiler did not come with the OS was that Microsoft's main business at that time was SELLING compilers.
Except of course that before "marriage equality" was imposed by the courts many states were passing domestic partnership laws. Domestic partnership laws solved all of those issues. The advantage of domestic partnership laws was that they were not limited to people in a sexual relationship. This meant that two people could share a house and other things without being sexual partner and have all of those benefits as well.
In time, it is likely that such laws would have made it feasible to remove marriage laws, with their religious overtones, from the books altogether.
More importantly, it suggests that the driver may have THOUGHT that the autopilot was on. Actually, it suggests a secondary point. The autopilot should NOT turn off until the car is either stopped or it detects that the driver is controlling the vehicle (hands on the wheel).
Tell that to the family of the young man he had flown across the country for medical treatment when commercial airlines would not allow him to board their planes.
The mistake all of the anti-Trump arguments make is that they attack Trump "Why trust Trump?" because he is not a proven liar and hypocrite like most politicians. Very few people support Trump because of his virtues, whatever they are. They support him because they are convinced that his opponents have NO virtues, while Trump appears to at least have a few.
OneDrive? OneDrive? I know I heard that somewhere, but I can't quite place it. Was that the one where Microsoft offered to store and scan your files in order to sell information about you to advertisers?
Listen just because MS renamed Internet Explorer does not mean that it isn't still Internet Explorer. Heck, the summary even admits it by calling Edge one of the "Big Four" browsers. The only way Edge qualifies as one of the big four is if you consider it the next version of Internet Explorer. If you consider it a separate browser it is number 5 (behind, Chrome, Internet Explorer, Firefox, and Safari).
Sorry, that doesn't work because the 66+% was of the WORKING AGE population and so is the 62+%. The baby boomers who are retiring are no longer part of the working age population.
Nice try
"There is only one universe" is disprovable. The idea of multiverses is not. Therefore the first is scientific while the latter is not. The other two I am not sure about.
Well, the interesting thing is that UKIP did that in the last election and when it started to look like UKIP might win the election, David Cameron promised to renegotiate Britain's relationship with the EU AND hold a referendum on leaving. That promise was the only reason the Conservative Party won the election.
No, I don't mistake "adding nuance and bringing the vision to life" for who creates the vision. Authors who write novels create characters. Playwrights and screenwriters give us lines and actions, the character is created primarily as a collaboration between the director and the actor. I have acted in many plays with good directors and bad directors. My opinion about the role which the director plays in shaping the character comes primarily from my experience becoming the character. On the other hand, my opinion about the role which the actor plays in shaping the character comes from watching OTHER actors figure out over the course of rehearsals why their character would deliver the lines he delivers. In particular, this came about in a performance where the writer described the characters he created, which bore no resemblance to the characters in the performance. The other thing which influences that is the plays I have been in where one of the actors changed.
I will repeat, while I have experienced creating the character as an actor, I am well aware that my perception of what was going on in those cases could be distorted. However, I have witnessed two different people play the same role with the same script and director as completely different characters. Now in those cases, the director knew the personality of the replacement actor and worked with them from day one to shape their character to fit into the performance with the other characters in the performance.
You have clearly NEVER acted in any performance worth the merit of being called acting. There are three people who determine the nature of the character, in order of significance: Director, Actor, Writer. The first two will switch depending on how good the Director and/or the Actor are. If the Director and the Actor are both very good they will become co-equal in creating the actual character. If, by some chance, the Writer is the most significant in creating the character, the character will be two-dimensional and wooden.
In which case, you should consider them beneficial for reminding you who the incumbent is, then you have no excuse for voting for them.
You do know the first rule of voting, don't you? "When in doubt, vote the Ins Out"
Or to put it another way, you should either vote for or against (usually against) the incumbent. Never vote against the challenger. The only time you should vote for the incumbent is if the incumbent has done something which gives you a compelling reason to vote for them. If the incumbent has not done something which makes you an enthusiastic supporter, vote against them.
I have never owned a car with a heated mirror circuit and I rarely have a problem with my mirrors getting ice covered.
You mean to tell me that you do not know someone, or of someone, who cuts glass? In my area, there are 5 to 10 professional glass cutters.
So, you buy a mirror larger than you need, take it to a glass professional and have them cut it to size.
Just more subtly planned obsolescence. While mirrors may wear out or break, it is simple enough to make a replacement. When these cameras wear out/break it is going to require a factory to make a replacement.
Battery/electric appears to be about to become a viable alternative to gasoline for automobiles, but in order to truly determine viability we need about a 10 year window (maybe 20). Currently, the trip length on a "full tank" for electric vehicles is too short considering the time it takes to recharge the batteries*. Both sides of that have been steadily improving over the last few years, so that problem seems to be in the process of getting solved. However, until there is more general adoption of electric vehicles we will not know if there are unanticipated problems which limit their viability.
* there are a significant number of special use cases where that is no longer true, but for the majority of people who need an automobile it is not there yet (many of those who do not have a problem with this would be adequately served by public transportation).
None of those compare with Buchanan, who basically created the situation which led to the Civil War. By his lack of leadership, and appeasement of the most militant of the slavery supporters, Buchanan made the Civil War inevitable.
There is reason to believe that Obama may have set us up for a second Civil War. Time will tell. I believe that historians of the distant future will consider Obama to be either the last President of the Constitutional Republic, or the first President of whatever they call our new government (which is no longer bound by the Constitution).
I think it is worth taking special note of the fact that men whose voices were masked as women than did men with unmasked voices. That data point contributes a key understanding: women do not interview as well as men (I would agree with your guess about self-confidence as a major contributor to that) and interviewers, being aware of this fact, give them a few extra "points" for being a woman.
Despite what those in the grievance industry would say if this went the other way (if men were bad at interviewing and interviewers gave them a few extra points to compensate), there is nothing wrong with this (as long as it is not written into law). I suspect that given a man and woman who would equally fill the position, the man would SEEM in an interview to be the better fit because women, in general, do not do as good of a job at presenting themselves in interviews.