That is basically because the US economy is crashing more slowly than Europe's. Kind of like people flocking to the end of the sinking ship that is still above water.
Why do people lose all rationality when it comes to economics? Slashdot posters who understand that the key to programming or engineering successfully is by rigorous and careful application of logic, seem to have no problem letting wish fulfillment take over when it comes to economic issues.
No, the government spending more does not correct the problem of faltering economy. The only way a government can spend more is by (1) removing money from the private sector, reducing spending by the amount they tax, or (2) increasing the money supply, devaluing all money by the amount they inflate, basically robbing from everybody with savings, or (3) borrowing, passing the debt plus interest onto future generations, thereby reducing all faith in their solvency.
Ryan is the only politician I've seen in many years seriously and honestly attempt to fix our fundamental economic problems, rather than just pandering with crowd-pleasing talking points.
Nah. Your history was no more barbaric than that of all the other continents. Asia, India...all home to atrocities. America escaped most of that history purely because it went from a stone age culture to post-Renaissance in one generation.
I think that's just a talking point that's been overly repeated.
Think of it this way: There's very few objective standards by which you could distinguish left wing/right wing, but one of them could arguably be 'increasing the size and role of the state' and 'decreasing the size and role of the state'. By that standard, Obama is clearly left wing, and Romney would barely be right wing if at all. Also, by that standard, most European politicians of all parties would tend to be leftist.
The fact that Obama is not as far left as many leaders in other countries doesn't mean he isn't leftist, unless you can't abstract your view from your local perspective.
Sarah Palin's website featured a gun's scope superimposed on a photo of Ms. Giffords, which inspired a mentally defective individual to shoot, injure and kill innocent people.
Nope. Palin did have a 'defeat these candidates' map with crosshairs (as did other people of both parties). However, the idea that the shooter ever saw that map, much less was inspired by it, is purely a concoction of some pundits hoping to influence a gullible public and seize political advantage from the tragedy. It evidently worked; you believed it.
Not always true. That's only the case if the supporters of the next-to-worst guy flock to third parties more than worst guy's supporters do. For instance, if Obama is the worst guy in the election, but more of his supporters flock to the green, communist, or whatever parties than Romney's do to the libertarians, than third parties helped get the better guy elected. (Reverse Obama and Romney if you think Romney is the worst of the lot.)
Much of the election will depend on which candidates' supporters are more fractured... but if the worst candidate is the most fractured, hey, we're all better off.
Perhaps the issue is that your country doesn't have a right wing?
Or perhaps you could be a little more sophisticated and realize that all talk of 'wings' is relative to an average, and hence every country has a right or left wing, insofar as they have any political debate?
(Or be even more sophisticated, and realize that 'wings' are generalizations of thousands of unique issues that have a slight tendency to cluster? I'm an atheist with several liberal social views, but feel that Ryan's stance on economic issues is so much more reasonable than Obama's or Biden's, that there's not even the pretense of a choice between the two. It's picking between an unpleasant solution and a fantasy.)
The only department that would be worse is a 'training department'. It's far better to get a class from a poor trainer who knows their subject, than a skilled trainer who doesn't.
The people that want to use that statement to criticize Romney will ignore your explanation, and continue using the out-of-context quote to attack. They don't _care_ if it's true, just whether it's effective.
Just because you silence the H doesn't mean you can add an N.
It does, actually. The a/an selection is based entirely on pronunciation, and has nothing to do with how the following word is spelled. It's one of the rare cases where correct grammar is based on the accent of the speaker.
1024 decisively lost the battle for title of "KB". I would rather be labled a dipshit than deal with ambiguous bullshit. Have enough problems without adding every other customer having a different expectation as to what KB means.
We only have that problem because busybodies tried to change the meaning away from the natural binary scale. The battle is not lost; I think that, if you are talking to at least half-way computer-literate people, they mean 1024 when they say KB.
"Power" is the biggest problem, and never much considered. How many amps does a powerful desktop pull? Smartphones and tablets can include some efficiencies, but not enough to overcome their power storage limitations. Batteries force a hard limit to the power of the machine; desktops will always have a huge advantage because they don't need to be structured around a hard power limit.
That's also a reason why smartphones won't replace consoles as primary gaming devices. Their power budget is too limiting. Sure, they can be plugged in on occasion, but they can't be built to take advantage of the power unless they have a redundant system that is deactivated most of the time.
And heat generation and dispersal factors in to that, basically proportional to the power consumption.
It's not on par graphically. I enjoy it more, simply because I enjoy turn-based tactical better than RTS*. It's more thoughtful. There are still rough edges on Wesnoth that would be smoothed out if it was a commercial release, true, but there are also features it has that would be eliminated.
*The game I've had the most enjoyment from in the last five years has probably been Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn... and that game could have been done on a super nintendo and not lost any entertainment value.
The more consequences you suffer because of your behavior, the more resistant you are to changing your behavior; the admission that you're doing something really stupid becomes harder and harder the longer you deny it and the more consequences accumulate. You're a pretty good example of that common human flaw.
Good lord. Some times I wonder if humanity deserves to live. Should a species that has a concept such as a car 'nearing the end of its aesthetic life' survive?
Slashdot Mirror
That is basically because the US economy is crashing more slowly than Europe's. Kind of like people flocking to the end of the sinking ship that is still above water.
Why do people lose all rationality when it comes to economics? Slashdot posters who understand that the key to programming or engineering successfully is by rigorous and careful application of logic, seem to have no problem letting wish fulfillment take over when it comes to economic issues.
No, the government spending more does not correct the problem of faltering economy. The only way a government can spend more is by (1) removing money from the private sector, reducing spending by the amount they tax, or (2) increasing the money supply, devaluing all money by the amount they inflate, basically robbing from everybody with savings, or (3) borrowing, passing the debt plus interest onto future generations, thereby reducing all faith in their solvency.
Ryan is the only politician I've seen in many years seriously and honestly attempt to fix our fundamental economic problems, rather than just pandering with crowd-pleasing talking points.
Read more about what she said. You'll ignore it, because it ruins this little talking point.
Nah. Your history was no more barbaric than that of all the other continents. Asia, India...all home to atrocities. America escaped most of that history purely because it went from a stone age culture to post-Renaissance in one generation.
I think that's just a talking point that's been overly repeated.
Think of it this way: There's very few objective standards by which you could distinguish left wing/right wing, but one of them could arguably be 'increasing the size and role of the state' and 'decreasing the size and role of the state'. By that standard, Obama is clearly left wing, and Romney would barely be right wing if at all. Also, by that standard, most European politicians of all parties would tend to be leftist.
The fact that Obama is not as far left as many leaders in other countries doesn't mean he isn't leftist, unless you can't abstract your view from your local perspective.
Really? I'd vastly prefer Ryan as president over Obama OR Romney.
Sarah Palin's website featured a gun's scope superimposed on a photo of Ms. Giffords, which inspired a mentally defective individual to shoot, injure and kill innocent people.
Nope. Palin did have a 'defeat these candidates' map with crosshairs (as did other people of both parties). However, the idea that the shooter ever saw that map, much less was inspired by it, is purely a concoction of some pundits hoping to influence a gullible public and seize political advantage from the tragedy. It evidently worked; you believed it.
More importantly, he just secured the Libertarian vote. Maybe that would just be 1%, but that can make a difference.
One with less executive experience than Sarah Palin
So about the same amount as Obama had when he assumed the presidency?
Not always true. That's only the case if the supporters of the next-to-worst guy flock to third parties more than worst guy's supporters do. For instance, if Obama is the worst guy in the election, but more of his supporters flock to the green, communist, or whatever parties than Romney's do to the libertarians, than third parties helped get the better guy elected. (Reverse Obama and Romney if you think Romney is the worst of the lot.)
Much of the election will depend on which candidates' supporters are more fractured... but if the worst candidate is the most fractured, hey, we're all better off.
Perhaps the issue is that your country doesn't have a right wing?
Or perhaps you could be a little more sophisticated and realize that all talk of 'wings' is relative to an average, and hence every country has a right or left wing, insofar as they have any political debate?
(Or be even more sophisticated, and realize that 'wings' are generalizations of thousands of unique issues that have a slight tendency to cluster? I'm an atheist with several liberal social views, but feel that Ryan's stance on economic issues is so much more reasonable than Obama's or Biden's, that there's not even the pretense of a choice between the two. It's picking between an unpleasant solution and a fantasy.)
And you can't tell the difference between addictive poison and a relatively harmless recreational drug?
Excellent example of the confirmation bias mentioned in the article.
They'll win, but have a much lower score. If they change their strategy to be nice, they'll 'lose', but have net benefit.
Your comment is amusing, because by singling out Fox News, you're demonstrating that you're a victim of very successful propaganda.
Well, often, yeah. Of course. You'll need to say how much economy and how much environment to really compare, though.
The only department that would be worse is a 'training department'. It's far better to get a class from a poor trainer who knows their subject, than a skilled trainer who doesn't.
The ribbon works well. It's just different than menus, not inferior. It has some advantages, some disadvantages.
Bing is just a search engine. There's really no significant difference in quality between it and google. Just pick your devil.
The people that want to use that statement to criticize Romney will ignore your explanation, and continue using the out-of-context quote to attack. They don't _care_ if it's true, just whether it's effective.
Wow, you've argued away books.
Just because you silence the H doesn't mean you can add an N.
It does, actually. The a/an selection is based entirely on pronunciation, and has nothing to do with how the following word is spelled. It's one of the rare cases where correct grammar is based on the accent of the speaker.
1024 decisively lost the battle for title of "KB". I would rather be labled a dipshit than deal with ambiguous bullshit. Have enough problems without adding every other customer having a different expectation as to what KB means.
We only have that problem because busybodies tried to change the meaning away from the natural binary scale. The battle is not lost; I think that, if you are talking to at least half-way computer-literate people, they mean 1024 when they say KB.
"Power" is the biggest problem, and never much considered. How many amps does a powerful desktop pull? Smartphones and tablets can include some efficiencies, but not enough to overcome their power storage limitations. Batteries force a hard limit to the power of the machine; desktops will always have a huge advantage because they don't need to be structured around a hard power limit.
That's also a reason why smartphones won't replace consoles as primary gaming devices. Their power budget is too limiting. Sure, they can be plugged in on occasion, but they can't be built to take advantage of the power unless they have a redundant system that is deactivated most of the time.
And heat generation and dispersal factors in to that, basically proportional to the power consumption.
It's not on par graphically. I enjoy it more, simply because I enjoy turn-based tactical better than RTS*. It's more thoughtful. There are still rough edges on Wesnoth that would be smoothed out if it was a commercial release, true, but there are also features it has that would be eliminated.
*The game I've had the most enjoyment from in the last five years has probably been Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn... and that game could have been done on a super nintendo and not lost any entertainment value.
The more consequences you suffer because of your behavior, the more resistant you are to changing your behavior; the admission that you're doing something really stupid becomes harder and harder the longer you deny it and the more consequences accumulate. You're a pretty good example of that common human flaw.
"...aesthetic life...".
Good lord. Some times I wonder if humanity deserves to live. Should a species that has a concept such as a car 'nearing the end of its aesthetic life' survive?