But as it is now, hunger is the government's fault because they didn't give you enough food stamps in order to sell half for booze or drugs and feed yourself with the other half
Well, your argument falls apart there, since it's hard to imagine someone to whom the government isn't giving enough food stamps. Somewhere around 2011 we passed the threshold. More people receive means-tested government assistance (like food stamps, but this excludes retirement programs) than pay income taxes. Can a democracy with more takers than makers survive? I suspect we share an opinion on that.
captitalism is about polarity: you can't have a capitalistic society unless you have poor and rich classes. those in power want to keep it that way, too.
Wow, you've really swallowed that propaganda whole.
Let me ask you this: if the average worker by the end of a productive career owns roughly 1 per-capita share of the means of production, is that capitalism, or communism?
Capitalism is the means of production owned by the people (maybe inequitably, but that's not a requirement), while communism is the means of production owned by the government "in the name of" the people.
I switched from gmail to outlook.com late last year. It totally doesn't suck. As far as I can tell it has the same features, and the look of the UI is fine (not beautiful, but neither is gmail).
What in particular do you disagree with? There's a reason that sports cars led the conversion to disk from drum brakes, after all - they just work better. And it's well known that ABS increases stopping distance over the most skilled braking, but its advantage is so huge for unskilled braking that even most sports cars don't let you turn it off, for fear of lawsuits (and unpowered disk brakes give such great feedback, no mushy pedal can match it).
Well, Lync integrates call, chat, and "are you at your desk" information nicely, so it would give more data to mine than any system that only does one of those. But then, assuming the employer has some sort of system for each, it's still the same data to mine.
I don't care at all about it being private. I care only if my employer gives me shit about what I do on it. Maybe if they see me looking for work they'll give me a larger raise to make sure they'll keep me. But changes are, they don't care at all either - they keep records to respond to lawsuits, or purge them quickly if not required to keep them (keeping anything just makes lawsuits worse, so big companies keep only what the law requires).
If it bother you that your employees are looking elsewhere for a job, perhaps try harder to retain them? I have standing offers to work for a couple of places, places that make the top paying employers lists. At this point in my career I don't really have to "look" for a new job, I just stop ignoring the offers. Yet I'm staying where I am - and not based on pay.
Want people to stay when they have plenty of choices? Try not pointlessly hassling them over shit like "using company equipment". You'd have to get pretty extreme with that sort of thing before you'd cost more than the cost of hiring someone new and them coming up to speed, even if you were such a dick that you even pay attention.
There is really no way in which drum brakes are better than disk brakes (until you start hauling 40 tons of freight). A larger brake surface just means less pressure with the same force: it's a wash Larger brakes do mean less wear and fade, but drum brakes are so bad to begin with that you never come out ahead on that curve (again, unless we're talking heavy equipment).
The shortest stopping distance on a car (with a great driver) will be achieved with no power assist on disk brakes and no ABS. We all have ABS because the skill to stop aggressively without locking up the tires is so rare (and it's really quite hard with power brakes). But finesse isn't what we're talking about here - it's just that people are used to the brakes doing something near the top of the petal travel, not at the very bottom.
My point of course, was that simple regs don't work (because the FCC isn't smart enough to find the right ones), and complex regs don't work (because they never do). Net Neutrality is a laudable goal, but a seemingly impractical one.
have any buildings blown up or civilians exploded because of our "panicked overreaction" ?
Does it matter how colorful it is? When you die, you're dead. And many more people died from driving instead of flying following 9/11 than were killed in the terrorist attck (there was a Cornell study on this).
While I am strongly against sacrificing basic freedom to stop some vague threat. I do believe that taking reasonable steps to provide public safety is not only reasonable but some organization ought to have it as their priority.
Everyone agrees with that. What's contentious is pretending that "terrorist attack" is a significant threat. It's more than 0, to be sure, and some group of people should be tasked with preventing it, but it should never be the primary focus of a group the size of the FBI.
Use whatever terms you like in your private language, but when a region breaks away from central government, the English terms are "civil war" and "rebellion", with the only difference being the outcome.
I've had the same problem - had to hook my foot under the gas pedal and lift it. But that's not at all the sort of problem we're talking about here - not a manufacturer's defect in throttle software (certainly not in my '69 240 Z).
In what car? I don't know your FIL, so I'll assume he's dumb as a sack of doorknobs, but I'll believe Woz when he said his Prius has the problem on the highway. The brakes still work, however.
There are vastly more people who step on the gas instead of the brake while parked/parking, however, then claim the car malfunctioned.
You can definitely stop with no vacuum assist or any other kind of assist - brakes are really quite strong when firmly applied. You do have to be serious about it though (you can't wear away brake pads quickly, BTW, they'll actually catch fire first, though I'd easily believe they were past due for service in that crash).
You can easily stop with no vacuum assist. It doesn't in any way change how effective the brakes are when firmly applied. It does however totally change how the brakes work and feel, and most drivers these days would have no idea what to do. It's not like we really train drivers after all. I drove a car with no power anything for years, and it's just a very different technique. However, if you stomp the pedal like you'll die if you don't, the car will stop.
It's been tested under every condition imaginable. Brake power completely dominates engine power. The only situations in which brakes won't stop you is if you have no brake pad, your brakes are actually on fire, or you're in a fully-loaded heavy truck on a steep grade (and grades that steep usually have emergency pull-offs with steep uphill stopping ramps - you may have seen them).
More like: stop confusing the break and gas pedals.
It seems like every 5 years or so we have a wave of "unintended acceleration" incidents that tarnish some manufacturer. A few years later when it's all gone through the courts, it's been "driver pedal misapplication" every time, a.k.a. "controlled flight into terrain". Sure, it's possible this is the first real acceleration bug, but I'm skeptical. When drivers claim "I was stepping on the brake really hard, but the car just launched forward", I'm incredibly skeptical (some of the Prius claims weren't this, though).
Will such a bug happen eventually? I think so - the more complexity there is, the more room for "oops". Self-driving cars could misbehave in all sorts of new and exciting ways. Likely still safer than a drunk driver, though.
All I was pointing out is that every civil war in history, as well as every revolution, includes the (disputed) claim by some region that "we're self governing". That's still a very different kind of war than a war of territorial acquisition.
Time travel: it will have been. It will have been. (Or using the H2G2 tenses: it willen haven been a documentary, unless there's a special tense for time travel to protect you own grandfather.)
Well, the difference between a civil war and a revolution is who wins, no? The claim that "we're actually a separate government and self-governing is what we're doing" was settled in the negative by the Civil War; otherwise it would have been settled the other way in the CSA revolution,
Well, the primary economic issue at state was the right to export slaves to the West, as slavery was no longer economically viable in the South but slave ownership could remain profitable with an export market. The South wasn't going to accept "if you like your slaves you can keep your slaves" as their goal was an interstate trade issue - one firmly in the charter of the federal government. The core issue wasn't one of self-government.
We won every major battle in Vietnam until we left, usually with a significant margin. The lesson from Vietnam was that you can win every military action and still lose the war, if you lose on what Clausewitz called "moral strength". It why we now talk about "hearts and minds" as central to such wars.
BTW, the first Gulf War was a traditional symmetric war. Our victory was so extreme it was frankly appalling, and changed military doctrine to accommodate realizing far more quickly that the enemy is defeated, trying to surrender, and we're just running up the score in a morally objectionable way, even in the context of war.
Slashdot Mirror
But as it is now, hunger is the government's fault because they didn't give you enough food stamps in order to sell half for booze or drugs and feed yourself with the other half
Well, your argument falls apart there, since it's hard to imagine someone to whom the government isn't giving enough food stamps. Somewhere around 2011 we passed the threshold. More people receive means-tested government assistance (like food stamps, but this excludes retirement programs) than pay income taxes. Can a democracy with more takers than makers survive? I suspect we share an opinion on that.
captitalism is about polarity: you can't have a capitalistic society unless you have poor and rich classes. those in power want to keep it that way, too.
Wow, you've really swallowed that propaganda whole.
Let me ask you this: if the average worker by the end of a productive career owns roughly 1 per-capita share of the means of production, is that capitalism, or communism?
Capitalism is the means of production owned by the people (maybe inequitably, but that's not a requirement), while communism is the means of production owned by the government "in the name of" the people.
I switched from gmail to outlook.com late last year. It totally doesn't suck. As far as I can tell it has the same features, and the look of the UI is fine (not beautiful, but neither is gmail).
Don't feel like you're stuck with gmail.
What in particular do you disagree with? There's a reason that sports cars led the conversion to disk from drum brakes, after all - they just work better. And it's well known that ABS increases stopping distance over the most skilled braking, but its advantage is so huge for unskilled braking that even most sports cars don't let you turn it off, for fear of lawsuits (and unpowered disk brakes give such great feedback, no mushy pedal can match it).
Well, Lync integrates call, chat, and "are you at your desk" information nicely, so it would give more data to mine than any system that only does one of those. But then, assuming the employer has some sort of system for each, it's still the same data to mine.
I don't care at all about it being private. I care only if my employer gives me shit about what I do on it. Maybe if they see me looking for work they'll give me a larger raise to make sure they'll keep me. But changes are, they don't care at all either - they keep records to respond to lawsuits, or purge them quickly if not required to keep them (keeping anything just makes lawsuits worse, so big companies keep only what the law requires).
Wow, people really believe this sort of shit?
If it bother you that your employees are looking elsewhere for a job, perhaps try harder to retain them? I have standing offers to work for a couple of places, places that make the top paying employers lists. At this point in my career I don't really have to "look" for a new job, I just stop ignoring the offers. Yet I'm staying where I am - and not based on pay.
Want people to stay when they have plenty of choices? Try not pointlessly hassling them over shit like "using company equipment". You'd have to get pretty extreme with that sort of thing before you'd cost more than the cost of hiring someone new and them coming up to speed, even if you were such a dick that you even pay attention.
Welcome to Communism. Totalitarian leader. Oppressive regime. Total economic collapse. Continuous propaganda internal and external.
http://www.keacher.com/672/tit...
http://www.caranddriver.com/fe...
Or you could, you know, try it in a parking lot. My non-sporty brakes easily overpower my 420 HP engine.
There is really no way in which drum brakes are better than disk brakes (until you start hauling 40 tons of freight). A larger brake surface just means less pressure with the same force: it's a wash Larger brakes do mean less wear and fade, but drum brakes are so bad to begin with that you never come out ahead on that curve (again, unless we're talking heavy equipment).
The shortest stopping distance on a car (with a great driver) will be achieved with no power assist on disk brakes and no ABS. We all have ABS because the skill to stop aggressively without locking up the tires is so rare (and it's really quite hard with power brakes). But finesse isn't what we're talking about here - it's just that people are used to the brakes doing something near the top of the petal travel, not at the very bottom.
My point of course, was that simple regs don't work (because the FCC isn't smart enough to find the right ones), and complex regs don't work (because they never do). Net Neutrality is a laudable goal, but a seemingly impractical one.
have any buildings blown up or civilians exploded because of our "panicked overreaction" ?
Does it matter how colorful it is? When you die, you're dead. And many more people died from driving instead of flying following 9/11 than were killed in the terrorist attck (there was a Cornell study on this).
While I am strongly against sacrificing basic freedom to stop some vague threat. I do believe that taking reasonable steps to provide public safety is not only reasonable but some organization ought to have it as their priority.
Everyone agrees with that. What's contentious is pretending that "terrorist attack" is a significant threat. It's more than 0, to be sure, and some group of people should be tasked with preventing it, but it should never be the primary focus of a group the size of the FBI.
Use whatever terms you like in your private language, but when a region breaks away from central government, the English terms are "civil war" and "rebellion", with the only difference being the outcome.
I've had the same problem - had to hook my foot under the gas pedal and lift it. But that's not at all the sort of problem we're talking about here - not a manufacturer's defect in throttle software (certainly not in my '69 240 Z).
In what car? I don't know your FIL, so I'll assume he's dumb as a sack of doorknobs, but I'll believe Woz when he said his Prius has the problem on the highway. The brakes still work, however.
There are vastly more people who step on the gas instead of the brake while parked/parking, however, then claim the car malfunctioned.
When did you start posting again?
You can definitely stop with no vacuum assist or any other kind of assist - brakes are really quite strong when firmly applied. You do have to be serious about it though (you can't wear away brake pads quickly, BTW, they'll actually catch fire first, though I'd easily believe they were past due for service in that crash).
You can easily stop with no vacuum assist. It doesn't in any way change how effective the brakes are when firmly applied. It does however totally change how the brakes work and feel, and most drivers these days would have no idea what to do. It's not like we really train drivers after all. I drove a car with no power anything for years, and it's just a very different technique. However, if you stomp the pedal like you'll die if you don't, the car will stop.
It's been tested under every condition imaginable. Brake power completely dominates engine power. The only situations in which brakes won't stop you is if you have no brake pad, your brakes are actually on fire, or you're in a fully-loaded heavy truck on a steep grade (and grades that steep usually have emergency pull-offs with steep uphill stopping ramps - you may have seen them).
More like: stop confusing the break and gas pedals.
It seems like every 5 years or so we have a wave of "unintended acceleration" incidents that tarnish some manufacturer. A few years later when it's all gone through the courts, it's been "driver pedal misapplication" every time, a.k.a. "controlled flight into terrain". Sure, it's possible this is the first real acceleration bug, but I'm skeptical. When drivers claim "I was stepping on the brake really hard, but the car just launched forward", I'm incredibly skeptical (some of the Prius claims weren't this, though).
Will such a bug happen eventually? I think so - the more complexity there is, the more room for "oops". Self-driving cars could misbehave in all sorts of new and exciting ways. Likely still safer than a drunk driver, though.
All I was pointing out is that every civil war in history, as well as every revolution, includes the (disputed) claim by some region that "we're self governing". That's still a very different kind of war than a war of territorial acquisition.
Time travel: it will have been. It will have been. (Or using the H2G2 tenses: it willen haven been a documentary, unless there's a special tense for time travel to protect you own grandfather.)
Well, the difference between a civil war and a revolution is who wins, no? The claim that "we're actually a separate government and self-governing is what we're doing" was settled in the negative by the Civil War; otherwise it would have been settled the other way in the CSA revolution,
None, until and unless the damage from terrorist attacks exceeds the damage from panicked overreaction to terrorist attacks.
Well, the primary economic issue at state was the right to export slaves to the West, as slavery was no longer economically viable in the South but slave ownership could remain profitable with an export market. The South wasn't going to accept "if you like your slaves you can keep your slaves" as their goal was an interstate trade issue - one firmly in the charter of the federal government. The core issue wasn't one of self-government.
We won every major battle in Vietnam until we left, usually with a significant margin. The lesson from Vietnam was that you can win every military action and still lose the war, if you lose on what Clausewitz called "moral strength". It why we now talk about "hearts and minds" as central to such wars.
BTW, the first Gulf War was a traditional symmetric war. Our victory was so extreme it was frankly appalling, and changed military doctrine to accommodate realizing far more quickly that the enemy is defeated, trying to surrender, and we're just running up the score in a morally objectionable way, even in the context of war.