Religion generally is largely opposed to drugs because they threaten the religious leadership's monopoly on spiritual experiences.
The Christians mostly co-opted alcohol consumption into their religious practices because it was already culturally endemic in the areas where organized Christianity took root and their religious orders often turned production of alcoholic beverages into an economic asset. Of course later Protestant denominations often rejected alcohol, too, although it's muddier as to whether this was a function of rejection of alcohol in the culture generally or a means of differentiating themselves from Catholicism which had embraced alcohol consumption.
Islamic religions managed to reject most all of it, although this may have been easier because the climate and geography may have made alcohol precursors (grapes, grains or abundant fruits) less available and thus less endemic to the culture. I wouldn't also put aside the notion of differentiating from Christian religions and Western cultures.
Hallucinogenic drugs though have seemed tightly controlled or rejected by religious authorities. Even in non-Christian religions where they formed part of the culture, access has been controlled to an extent by shamans or medicine men who also exercised influence over the local religion. I'd also argue that opium would fall into this category as well since opium smoking produces a delirium which may also serve as a replacement for religious experience.
When I supervised employees, I was told denial of unemployment (at least in this state) meant termination for cause and I think most of them willful causes, like absenteeism, criminal behavior, gross negligence and insubordination.
Poor performance didn't cut it for denial of benefits because the onus was on the company for setting achievable productivity and hiring qualified people, and substandard output was always seen as a company hiring and/or management fault, not an act of willfulness on the employees part. One a company hires an individual they are basically validating that the employee is qualified for the position and that they believe they are capable of doing it.
Of course at will employment means you can fire them anyway, but it dings your unemployment compensation.
The same was true of mistakes or errors -- barring insubordination or gross negligence, if they make a mistake it's the employer's fault for not managing errors. In many cases, the employer has granted and required some decision making authority of the employee and they own the results of those errors.
The Netherlands seems to have a pretty good handle on civil liberties. Switzerland seems to have a pretty good handle on individual privacy and has the bonus value of general global political neutrality.
I'd say it's a toss-up, with a nod to the Netherlands which probably has slightly better network connectivity due to geography although I'd bet Switzerland wouldn't be too far behind on that, either.
It's utterly naive to think that everyone can be in the top X% or that all employees will perform so equally that better or worse can't be distinguished
Isn't that how 6-Sigma at GE supposedly worked? They routinely expected to sack anyone whose metrics were below some arbitrary number? Keep jacking the number they have to hit up and when they stop making it, you jettison them like an empty rocket stage.
Is an "employee improvement plan" literally just a euphemism for the fast track to termination everywhere, or are there places where it's taken seriously and efforts are made to actually improve an employee's performance?
It sure seems like EIPs only really exist as a way to get rid of an employee -- set unreachable goals, make them pariahs who other employees would keep at arm's length, flag them for increased scrutiny of metrics generally ignored for other employees, basically create the cover for termination with cause and denial of any unemployment benefits.
But are there companies that actually use them to help right a floundering employee and make them successful? Acknowledge that company process is imperfect, managers aren't either, the employee in question is skilled but maybe not an ideal fit for the team they're placed in? Any companies actually take seriously the idea they have a fair amount invested in someone they've already hired and that it may make sense to actually do something to make the employee work out vs. starting over?
As a contractor, I know I've walked into places where my skills were ideal for the job but where all manner of circumstances (people, management, resources) left my performance substandard, despite doing the same thing well just previously elsewhere and then moving on to do the same thing well at a new location. Objectively I should have done equally well at companies A, B & C but for reasons that seem external to me, B works less well.
We already have professional regulation for engineers with the PE licensing system, requiring a PE to sign off on a lot of critical engineering.
I doubt it would be a panacea, I've worked with engineering companies on projects and most of the engineers, while degreed in engineering, were not PEs, and despite being actually college educated in the discipline often approached design issues worse than IT people with minimal formal education.
I'm kind of surprised we haven't seen PE-style requirements for computer systems yet. Maybe they are required in health care or some critical control systems (possibly as an inherited requirement for the larger "system").
But like anything else, the reason we haven't is the market's appetite for IT systems is for the most part unquenchable and requiring more intensive certification would balloon IT costs massively. There's H1B pressure on IT workers now because they're scarce enough to still command decent salaries and that's with the labor pool swollen to accept all comers. If you mandate professional certifications, it will dramatically cut the labor pool and force wages too high.
I'd also question how practical it would be. With physical engineering, there are principles of physics which don't really change. Even Medicine and Law, while they do change, change slowly enough that educations aren't made worthless in 5 years and most working professionals in those fields can get by with continuing education credits and ongoing experience/exposure to new techniques or drugs.
With IT people, it all changes so rapidly and is often so vendor/product driven that there's few principles outside of information theory or symbolic logic that remain constant enough. Someone certified as an IT professional could literally be functionally deficient in 5 years. We already have treadmills for product certifications requiring renewal every couple of years.
Doctors and lawyers are protected from much offshoring & visa workers due to various laws and trade agreement exceptions, for example.
Mostly it's because the regulatory bodies for those professions are made up of...wait for it...people in those professions, and they are often statutorily empowered to make rules and often adjudicate problems. So the medical board is run by doctors who, surprise, surprise, rig the rules in their favor and limit qualification for their trade which has the effect of limiting the labor pool.
In some ways it makes total rational sense, because why wouldn't you want doctors, who best understand the practice of medicine, setting the rules and standards for who can practice medicine?
On the other hand, the fox is in charge of the henhouse. I had a friend get horrible dental care. In so much pain, he pretty much randomly selected the closest dentist he could get into on short notice and dentist 2 was horrified at the work. Dentist 2 documented everything wrong and what he did to fix it, solving my friend's problems. He submitted a claim to the dental board against Dentist 1 -- only to have the claim rejected as unsubstantiated. And why not? If a bunch of dentists gets to decide what complaints are legitimate, why wouldn't they reject a claim against a fellow dentist, even if another dentist provides documented clinical proof?
They would have offshored it to begin with if offshoring was the same as hiring cheap on-shore labor. Even at its most evil, doing H1B involves a bunch over inherent overhead that doesn't exist in pure offshoring.
It's not the same, though, because they gain a bunch of benefits from on-premise H1Bs they wouldn't have with off-shoring -- control over the product, direct management involvement, less travel, an ability to use H1B labor more strategically through partial replacement, and so on.
If they can't use H1B, offshoring isn't a direct replacement. A business may decide that the added costs and risks of total offshoring aren't worth it.
IMHO, part of the goal here is make business incur either the total cost of offshoring or hire American workers. Maybe in some cases they decide for offshoring completely, but I think in many cases the calculus would work out that the incremental cost of losing all on-shore benefits was higher than hiring and paying American workers.
Third party standards for hate speech? Are any of the "third parties" remotely neutral in their designation of hate speech? It seems like most of the groups invested in the idea of hate speech have strong political agendas themselves and often draw the line on hate speech well into grey areas that may not be hate speech.
They'd be right. I was in a Ferrari Testarossa and it was awful. You'd have orthapedic problems just sitting in the seat if you were over 5'10. Getting in an out is impossible. Visibility sucks. The ride is harsh on anything but good asphalt. The interior features are minimal and flimsy.
I think the more recent supercars are all teched up with creature comforts, though.
Do we even need evidence of vote rigging? Wouldn't it be sufficient to show the voting machines are untrustworthy and that a recount can't be done because there were no paper ballots (in particular places)? To me, that should be sufficient to invalidate results entirely.
I think you would probably need demonstrable proof via controlled testing that the machines are so untrustworthy that the voting errors that occur exceed some statistical standard for accuracy. I don't think you could do this, though, without sampling sizes close to the actual number of votes cast. The test is scientifically definable but practically unobtainable.
But yeah, a complete procedural deadlock is exactly what I'm hoping for. Something that crippling to the nation would surely force a major change to the Constitution, something that's been overdue for ages.
The problem is that there are many possible outcomes and few of them are "good" outcomes, fewer still optimal outcomes with minimal negative unintended consequences. Lots of people want major changes to the Constitution, most of them (IMHO) would be bad, and are sought be powerful interests looking to enhance their power base.
Even leaving aside Constitutional changes, could we end up with a "caretaker" government, a junta of Supreme Court justices and Congressional leaders ruling for an undefined period? I'm also curious at what point, devoid of a well-defined legitimate President, does the military believe that it plays a role in defining a national security role for itself.
In terms of the military, assume you have a procedural deadlock, what kind of civil disorder is possible on both sides?
FWIW, I'm not even sure I believe that "state sponsored" is even meaningful anymore. It implies a sense of sanctioning, cohesion and coordination involving government political leadership and sanctioned organizational implementation.
I think we have something closer to a free for all where those with the abilities and resources are taking their own initiative and even if they are operating under the cover of legitimate authority are executing self-authorized and perhaps even personal agendas. I won't even exclude independent, non-governmental actors seeking outcomes not aligned with any coherent government policy
Do you think that Google has a completely ignorant security team? That they don't have access to internal experts in global routing and traffic analysis? They wouldn't have an internal databases of known hacking sources, methodologies and heuristics and means of tracking command and control?
They may not have a signed invoice for the person paying for the attacks, but they likely can make really, really informed estimates.
Krugman's value isn't the accuracy of his economic predictions, its his public status as the economist to the liberal elite. He's a major opinion leader whose academic status gives him significant public credibility. And they may not even care about that primarily, what if you hacked his account and found evidence of collusion with Democratic politicians? Even if it wasn't active political collision but only non-partisan advice being solicited and given, how hard would that be to turn into click-bait propaganda?
Even if access only gave you the ability to predict his columns, it may be enough evidence to create timely counter-propaganda via a competing analysis, discrediting his sources or other means. This could be used against the Democrats generally or against candidates specifically to influence internal debate or power struggles inside a party.
It may be rare in build your own motherboards, but it's not uncommon in low-end Dell desktops. I see a fair amount of desktops with what sounds like a typical crap beep speaker wired to the sound chip output. The sound quality and volume is poor, but you hear Windows audio out of it.
I doubt it would make a useful microphone as the audio output quality is poor and its buried inside the noisy PC case, which may be made worse by being a SFF case where its closer to fans or drives.
In the case of a tie on the Supreme Court the lower court ruling stands, it's basically the same as a vote against, minus the Supreme Court precedent. With a Presidential election, though, I don't think a lower appeals court would cut it. But I also think on a matter of Presidential election the court would 4-4 deadlock.
I think for this crisis to work, though, I think it would require weird events. Trump would have to actually win the actual electoral college balloting and then Clinton would have to come up with prima facie evidence of sufficient vote rigging that would eliminate Trump's electoral college majority and then sue in the Supreme Court to overturn the electoral college outcome, and they would have to rule 8-0 in favor of her claim but *without* prescribing a means for resolving it.
I think on any matter of Presidential succession the court would rule 8-0 as they would likely agree internally in advance of any ruling that it was necessary for the well-bring of the nation and the authority of the court to not arrive at a split decision.
Then at that point, Congress would have to claim the right under the 12th Amendment to elect the President and the Democrats, if they had the numbers, to deny Congress the quorum necessary to do so.
Now you have a procedural deadlock, and it would be interesting.
I'm not entirely sure that a constitutional crisis need only be defined as a corner case undefined by the Constitution. I think you can include a broader definition which includes situations murkily defined by the Constitution and not acted upon by any of the named bodies or adjudicated by the Supreme Court in any living person's lifetime. "We added some error handling code, but since we've never actually run it, we don't even know if it would handle the errors."
Plus. most of the 12th Amendment has never been actually tested in real life, so we don't know exactly how it would work mechanically. I don't know off the top of my head if the Republicans hold enough seats to obtain a quorum should the Democrats decide not to participate at all.
And then you have the further problem of the Supreme Court potentially adjudicating disputes involving interpretation of the 12th Amendment. Would they refuse to rule and decide that electoral questions can only be handled by elected representatives? If they did rule, would Congress feel compelled to respect their interpretation?
Nearly everyone I knew who voted for Trump did so because they didn't like Hillary or the sanctimonious liberalism she represented. After that there was a desire to throw a monkeywrench into the system.
I don't think anyone actually believed in his "promises" in any literal sense, they were translated into general understandings. "The wall" wasn't ever going to be an actual wall but a generally harder line on illegal immigration, moving jobs to the US wasn't any specific plan but some vague understanding that he would limit the exodus of jobs to foreign countries.
And it wasn't if any of these beliefs in the nature of vague promises meant much, either. None of the people I know who voted for Trump say they did so because of any specific plan or investment in any specific issue.
You know what's funny? Seems like if you want to get things done, you need a Democrat to start wars, and a Republican to protect the environment. That way, the left largely stays silent as countries get attacked, and the right largely stays silent as regulations are imposed.
I think this is true -- it takes the leadership of the group generally opposed to a policy to actually enact the policy because only they can sell the idea to those opposed. BIll Clinton passed welfare reform for example. The first woman elected President will probably be a Republican.
Probably *not* just business because African Americans are around 5% of the population and I doubt enough of the paper's readership even reads the back pages of the local news section for a business-altering subset of the readership to care.
I think the point the OP was trying to make is that liberals also have an ideology and object to news content that runs counter to their ideology. Objecting to factual information based on ideological adherence is the problem.
My own local newspaper has actually been doing this for over a decade. They *used* to include the race of a suspect in descriptions and arrest reporting, but dropped it because they felt it was prejudicial. It didn't matter that the *police* issued a press release saying that they were looking for a black male, aged 18-25 or that they had charged $Criminal, a black male, age 19 for committing a crime.
They were perfectly willing to suppress material facts made public by law enforcement because it conflicted with a multiculturalist ideology. Consistently reporting on high levels of black crime undermined their multicultural agenda and ideology, so they chose to suppress it as much as possible.
The irony has always been that the layout/copy desk doesn't always follow the agenda, they occasionally run mug shot photos after arrests. True to form race isn't mentioned in the article, but by displaying the picture, someone is thumbing their nose at the editorial policy.
Is there anything about this better than an RDP solution now?
Or are they holding back on the external KVM part of the solution until they can run x86 binaries? I would think with external KVM and an RDP app would be all you would need in a corporate context to run RDP apps.
I have a hard time seeing emulated x86 running well, especially in mobile phone hardware footprints.
There is, but what I notice is that 5 Ghz availability varies greatly depending on where I am. More than a couple of walls, and I'm in 2.4 Ghz. If I had picked only the 5 Ghz SSID, I'd get no wireless at all in some locations.
And the stupid devices are never smart enough to associate with 5 Ghz SSID over 2.4 Ghz SSID if I have autoconnect for both, even when 5 Ghz only works fine.
So for at least my local house structure, AP locations and use cases it makes more sense to create a single SSID on both bands and let the equipment work out its idea of optimal frequency and radio selection vs. getting no usable coverage in some locations.
I could increase my AP count and just shut off 2.4 Ghz completely, but that's another clusterfuck of wiring I just don't care enough about to deal with.
The idea of manually choosing a band seems rather primitive when most devices boot up in an RF soup of APs, generic 2.4Ghz devices, and god knows what else blasting away. Unless you have a spectrum analyzer of your own, you won't get a great idea of what band to choose anyway.
It seems like it makes perfect sense for the device itself to listen to the RF spectrum and pick a band based on its own analysis, ideally dynamically to adapt to changing conditions.
The only time where manual band selection makes any sense is in a highly engineered rollout where you're attempting to do fit a lot of clients and APs into a single space and you adjust band and power in conjunction with standalone RF analysis.
Scalping -- the resale of tickets above face value -- is perfectly legal in Minnesota.
And it wouldn't exist at all if the tickets were priced originally relative to demand or if they used a reverse auction process that started at very high prices and reduced them in step with demand. The notion that popular tickets should be cheap and abundant is absurd.
Newspapers have always had a tabloid tendency and were in many ways worse in the 1920s and 1930s, the era of the Hearst newspaper empire and Hearst's many political agendas which he used his newspaper empire to push. The mass media had characters like Father Coughlin and his Breitbart levels of populism and antisemitism.
It's only after WW II that the newspapers become something of a serious and more neutral force, but even then they were glossing over some facts, such as ignoring Presidential affairs. By the early 1970s, we have the dawn of the crusading liberal in the form of Woodward and Bernstein, taking Nixon down with their Watergate reporting and the NY Times with the Pentagon Papers.
In spite of this, I think in this era the media was taking its role as the Fourth Estate seriously and with an academic level of introspection and attempted neutrality.
I think it began taking a further turn for the worse when CNN and the 24 hour cable news network came around. Not only did it help hollow out newspaper publishing as a business, but it inaugurated the relentless news cycle where fresh content had to be sourced every few hours, leading the press to spend its time not developing good stories, but searching for the next quote, the next nugget or the next angle.
The Internet made the 24 hour news cycle worse. Where CNN made new TV news every few hours, now newspapers were expected to have something new every time the page was reloaded. Social media and clickbait made it worse, making it harder for the consumer to sift news from hype.
With all of this, I don't think the major news outlets have made it better. I've subscribed to the NY Times for 20-odd years and I think it's journalistic neutrality has been seriously in question for years now. In this election cycle, the bias for Hillary has been palpable. Their article choices and language always made it harder for Sanders to appear serious, and Hillary was given every pass and very positive coverage. Once Trump became the leading Republican candidate, they were writing "analysis" headlines questioning their obligation to neutrality. To me it seemed fairly clear that journalism itself was operating in a demographic bubble of like-thinking liberals bought into the Hillary agenda.
Slashdot Mirror
Religion generally is largely opposed to drugs because they threaten the religious leadership's monopoly on spiritual experiences.
The Christians mostly co-opted alcohol consumption into their religious practices because it was already culturally endemic in the areas where organized Christianity took root and their religious orders often turned production of alcoholic beverages into an economic asset. Of course later Protestant denominations often rejected alcohol, too, although it's muddier as to whether this was a function of rejection of alcohol in the culture generally or a means of differentiating themselves from Catholicism which had embraced alcohol consumption.
Islamic religions managed to reject most all of it, although this may have been easier because the climate and geography may have made alcohol precursors (grapes, grains or abundant fruits) less available and thus less endemic to the culture. I wouldn't also put aside the notion of differentiating from Christian religions and Western cultures.
Hallucinogenic drugs though have seemed tightly controlled or rejected by religious authorities. Even in non-Christian religions where they formed part of the culture, access has been controlled to an extent by shamans or medicine men who also exercised influence over the local religion. I'd also argue that opium would fall into this category as well since opium smoking produces a delirium which may also serve as a replacement for religious experience.
When I supervised employees, I was told denial of unemployment (at least in this state) meant termination for cause and I think most of them willful causes, like absenteeism, criminal behavior, gross negligence and insubordination.
Poor performance didn't cut it for denial of benefits because the onus was on the company for setting achievable productivity and hiring qualified people, and substandard output was always seen as a company hiring and/or management fault, not an act of willfulness on the employees part. One a company hires an individual they are basically validating that the employee is qualified for the position and that they believe they are capable of doing it.
Of course at will employment means you can fire them anyway, but it dings your unemployment compensation.
The same was true of mistakes or errors -- barring insubordination or gross negligence, if they make a mistake it's the employer's fault for not managing errors. In many cases, the employer has granted and required some decision making authority of the employee and they own the results of those errors.
How about the Netherlands or Switzerland?
The Netherlands seems to have a pretty good handle on civil liberties. Switzerland seems to have a pretty good handle on individual privacy and has the bonus value of general global political neutrality.
I'd say it's a toss-up, with a nod to the Netherlands which probably has slightly better network connectivity due to geography although I'd bet Switzerland wouldn't be too far behind on that, either.
It's utterly naive to think that everyone can be in the top X% or that all employees will perform so equally that better or worse can't be distinguished
Isn't that how 6-Sigma at GE supposedly worked? They routinely expected to sack anyone whose metrics were below some arbitrary number? Keep jacking the number they have to hit up and when they stop making it, you jettison them like an empty rocket stage.
Is an "employee improvement plan" literally just a euphemism for the fast track to termination everywhere, or are there places where it's taken seriously and efforts are made to actually improve an employee's performance?
It sure seems like EIPs only really exist as a way to get rid of an employee -- set unreachable goals, make them pariahs who other employees would keep at arm's length, flag them for increased scrutiny of metrics generally ignored for other employees, basically create the cover for termination with cause and denial of any unemployment benefits.
But are there companies that actually use them to help right a floundering employee and make them successful? Acknowledge that company process is imperfect, managers aren't either, the employee in question is skilled but maybe not an ideal fit for the team they're placed in? Any companies actually take seriously the idea they have a fair amount invested in someone they've already hired and that it may make sense to actually do something to make the employee work out vs. starting over?
As a contractor, I know I've walked into places where my skills were ideal for the job but where all manner of circumstances (people, management, resources) left my performance substandard, despite doing the same thing well just previously elsewhere and then moving on to do the same thing well at a new location. Objectively I should have done equally well at companies A, B & C but for reasons that seem external to me, B works less well.
We already have professional regulation for engineers with the PE licensing system, requiring a PE to sign off on a lot of critical engineering.
I doubt it would be a panacea, I've worked with engineering companies on projects and most of the engineers, while degreed in engineering, were not PEs, and despite being actually college educated in the discipline often approached design issues worse than IT people with minimal formal education.
I'm kind of surprised we haven't seen PE-style requirements for computer systems yet. Maybe they are required in health care or some critical control systems (possibly as an inherited requirement for the larger "system").
But like anything else, the reason we haven't is the market's appetite for IT systems is for the most part unquenchable and requiring more intensive certification would balloon IT costs massively. There's H1B pressure on IT workers now because they're scarce enough to still command decent salaries and that's with the labor pool swollen to accept all comers. If you mandate professional certifications, it will dramatically cut the labor pool and force wages too high.
I'd also question how practical it would be. With physical engineering, there are principles of physics which don't really change. Even Medicine and Law, while they do change, change slowly enough that educations aren't made worthless in 5 years and most working professionals in those fields can get by with continuing education credits and ongoing experience/exposure to new techniques or drugs.
With IT people, it all changes so rapidly and is often so vendor/product driven that there's few principles outside of information theory or symbolic logic that remain constant enough. Someone certified as an IT professional could literally be functionally deficient in 5 years. We already have treadmills for product certifications requiring renewal every couple of years.
Doctors and lawyers are protected from much offshoring & visa workers due to various laws and trade agreement exceptions, for example.
Mostly it's because the regulatory bodies for those professions are made up of...wait for it...people in those professions, and they are often statutorily empowered to make rules and often adjudicate problems. So the medical board is run by doctors who, surprise, surprise, rig the rules in their favor and limit qualification for their trade which has the effect of limiting the labor pool.
In some ways it makes total rational sense, because why wouldn't you want doctors, who best understand the practice of medicine, setting the rules and standards for who can practice medicine?
On the other hand, the fox is in charge of the henhouse. I had a friend get horrible dental care. In so much pain, he pretty much randomly selected the closest dentist he could get into on short notice and dentist 2 was horrified at the work. Dentist 2 documented everything wrong and what he did to fix it, solving my friend's problems. He submitted a claim to the dental board against Dentist 1 -- only to have the claim rejected as unsubstantiated. And why not? If a bunch of dentists gets to decide what complaints are legitimate, why wouldn't they reject a claim against a fellow dentist, even if another dentist provides documented clinical proof?
They would have offshored it to begin with if offshoring was the same as hiring cheap on-shore labor. Even at its most evil, doing H1B involves a bunch over inherent overhead that doesn't exist in pure offshoring.
It's not the same, though, because they gain a bunch of benefits from on-premise H1Bs they wouldn't have with off-shoring -- control over the product, direct management involvement, less travel, an ability to use H1B labor more strategically through partial replacement, and so on.
If they can't use H1B, offshoring isn't a direct replacement. A business may decide that the added costs and risks of total offshoring aren't worth it.
IMHO, part of the goal here is make business incur either the total cost of offshoring or hire American workers. Maybe in some cases they decide for offshoring completely, but I think in many cases the calculus would work out that the incremental cost of losing all on-shore benefits was higher than hiring and paying American workers.
Third party standards for hate speech? Are any of the "third parties" remotely neutral in their designation of hate speech? It seems like most of the groups invested in the idea of hate speech have strong political agendas themselves and often draw the line on hate speech well into grey areas that may not be hate speech.
They'd be right. I was in a Ferrari Testarossa and it was awful. You'd have orthapedic problems just sitting in the seat if you were over 5'10. Getting in an out is impossible. Visibility sucks. The ride is harsh on anything but good asphalt. The interior features are minimal and flimsy.
I think the more recent supercars are all teched up with creature comforts, though.
Do we even need evidence of vote rigging? Wouldn't it be sufficient to show the voting machines are untrustworthy and that a recount can't be done because there were no paper ballots (in particular places)? To me, that should be sufficient to invalidate results entirely.
I think you would probably need demonstrable proof via controlled testing that the machines are so untrustworthy that the voting errors that occur exceed some statistical standard for accuracy. I don't think you could do this, though, without sampling sizes close to the actual number of votes cast. The test is scientifically definable but practically unobtainable.
But yeah, a complete procedural deadlock is exactly what I'm hoping for. Something that crippling to the nation would surely force a major change to the Constitution, something that's been overdue for ages.
The problem is that there are many possible outcomes and few of them are "good" outcomes, fewer still optimal outcomes with minimal negative unintended consequences. Lots of people want major changes to the Constitution, most of them (IMHO) would be bad, and are sought be powerful interests looking to enhance their power base.
Even leaving aside Constitutional changes, could we end up with a "caretaker" government, a junta of Supreme Court justices and Congressional leaders ruling for an undefined period? I'm also curious at what point, devoid of a well-defined legitimate President, does the military believe that it plays a role in defining a national security role for itself.
In terms of the military, assume you have a procedural deadlock, what kind of civil disorder is possible on both sides?
FWIW, I'm not even sure I believe that "state sponsored" is even meaningful anymore. It implies a sense of sanctioning, cohesion and coordination involving government political leadership and sanctioned organizational implementation.
I think we have something closer to a free for all where those with the abilities and resources are taking their own initiative and even if they are operating under the cover of legitimate authority are executing self-authorized and perhaps even personal agendas. I won't even exclude independent, non-governmental actors seeking outcomes not aligned with any coherent government policy
It's more reasonable than you think.
Do you think that Google has a completely ignorant security team? That they don't have access to internal experts in global routing and traffic analysis? They wouldn't have an internal databases of known hacking sources, methodologies and heuristics and means of tracking command and control?
They may not have a signed invoice for the person paying for the attacks, but they likely can make really, really informed estimates.
Krugman's value isn't the accuracy of his economic predictions, its his public status as the economist to the liberal elite. He's a major opinion leader whose academic status gives him significant public credibility. And they may not even care about that primarily, what if you hacked his account and found evidence of collusion with Democratic politicians? Even if it wasn't active political collision but only non-partisan advice being solicited and given, how hard would that be to turn into click-bait propaganda?
Even if access only gave you the ability to predict his columns, it may be enough evidence to create timely counter-propaganda via a competing analysis, discrediting his sources or other means. This could be used against the Democrats generally or against candidates specifically to influence internal debate or power struggles inside a party.
It may be rare in build your own motherboards, but it's not uncommon in low-end Dell desktops. I see a fair amount of desktops with what sounds like a typical crap beep speaker wired to the sound chip output. The sound quality and volume is poor, but you hear Windows audio out of it.
I doubt it would make a useful microphone as the audio output quality is poor and its buried inside the noisy PC case, which may be made worse by being a SFF case where its closer to fans or drives.
In the case of a tie on the Supreme Court the lower court ruling stands, it's basically the same as a vote against, minus the Supreme Court precedent. With a Presidential election, though, I don't think a lower appeals court would cut it. But I also think on a matter of Presidential election the court would 4-4 deadlock.
I think for this crisis to work, though, I think it would require weird events. Trump would have to actually win the actual electoral college balloting and then Clinton would have to come up with prima facie evidence of sufficient vote rigging that would eliminate Trump's electoral college majority and then sue in the Supreme Court to overturn the electoral college outcome, and they would have to rule 8-0 in favor of her claim but *without* prescribing a means for resolving it.
I think on any matter of Presidential succession the court would rule 8-0 as they would likely agree internally in advance of any ruling that it was necessary for the well-bring of the nation and the authority of the court to not arrive at a split decision.
Then at that point, Congress would have to claim the right under the 12th Amendment to elect the President and the Democrats, if they had the numbers, to deny Congress the quorum necessary to do so.
Now you have a procedural deadlock, and it would be interesting.
I'm not entirely sure that a constitutional crisis need only be defined as a corner case undefined by the Constitution. I think you can include a broader definition which includes situations murkily defined by the Constitution and not acted upon by any of the named bodies or adjudicated by the Supreme Court in any living person's lifetime. "We added some error handling code, but since we've never actually run it, we don't even know if it would handle the errors."
Plus. most of the 12th Amendment has never been actually tested in real life, so we don't know exactly how it would work mechanically. I don't know off the top of my head if the Republicans hold enough seats to obtain a quorum should the Democrats decide not to participate at all.
And then you have the further problem of the Supreme Court potentially adjudicating disputes involving interpretation of the 12th Amendment. Would they refuse to rule and decide that electoral questions can only be handled by elected representatives? If they did rule, would Congress feel compelled to respect their interpretation?
Nearly everyone I knew who voted for Trump did so because they didn't like Hillary or the sanctimonious liberalism she represented. After that there was a desire to throw a monkeywrench into the system.
I don't think anyone actually believed in his "promises" in any literal sense, they were translated into general understandings. "The wall" wasn't ever going to be an actual wall but a generally harder line on illegal immigration, moving jobs to the US wasn't any specific plan but some vague understanding that he would limit the exodus of jobs to foreign countries.
And it wasn't if any of these beliefs in the nature of vague promises meant much, either. None of the people I know who voted for Trump say they did so because of any specific plan or investment in any specific issue.
You know what's funny? Seems like if you want to get things done, you need a Democrat to start wars, and a Republican to protect the environment. That way, the left largely stays silent as countries get attacked, and the right largely stays silent as regulations are imposed.
I think this is true -- it takes the leadership of the group generally opposed to a policy to actually enact the policy because only they can sell the idea to those opposed. BIll Clinton passed welfare reform for example. The first woman elected President will probably be a Republican.
Probably *not* just business because African Americans are around 5% of the population and I doubt enough of the paper's readership even reads the back pages of the local news section for a business-altering subset of the readership to care.
I think the point the OP was trying to make is that liberals also have an ideology and object to news content that runs counter to their ideology. Objecting to factual information based on ideological adherence is the problem.
My own local newspaper has actually been doing this for over a decade. They *used* to include the race of a suspect in descriptions and arrest reporting, but dropped it because they felt it was prejudicial. It didn't matter that the *police* issued a press release saying that they were looking for a black male, aged 18-25 or that they had charged $Criminal, a black male, age 19 for committing a crime.
They were perfectly willing to suppress material facts made public by law enforcement because it conflicted with a multiculturalist ideology. Consistently reporting on high levels of black crime undermined their multicultural agenda and ideology, so they chose to suppress it as much as possible.
The irony has always been that the layout/copy desk doesn't always follow the agenda, they occasionally run mug shot photos after arrests. True to form race isn't mentioned in the article, but by displaying the picture, someone is thumbing their nose at the editorial policy.
I'm guessing the use of an external KVM eliminates that kind of mobile phone use scenario, unless you carry a KVM setup on the bus with you.
Is there anything about this better than an RDP solution now?
Or are they holding back on the external KVM part of the solution until they can run x86 binaries? I would think with external KVM and an RDP app would be all you would need in a corporate context to run RDP apps.
I have a hard time seeing emulated x86 running well, especially in mobile phone hardware footprints.
There is, but what I notice is that 5 Ghz availability varies greatly depending on where I am. More than a couple of walls, and I'm in 2.4 Ghz. If I had picked only the 5 Ghz SSID, I'd get no wireless at all in some locations.
And the stupid devices are never smart enough to associate with 5 Ghz SSID over 2.4 Ghz SSID if I have autoconnect for both, even when 5 Ghz only works fine.
So for at least my local house structure, AP locations and use cases it makes more sense to create a single SSID on both bands and let the equipment work out its idea of optimal frequency and radio selection vs. getting no usable coverage in some locations.
I could increase my AP count and just shut off 2.4 Ghz completely, but that's another clusterfuck of wiring I just don't care enough about to deal with.
The idea of manually choosing a band seems rather primitive when most devices boot up in an RF soup of APs, generic 2.4Ghz devices, and god knows what else blasting away. Unless you have a spectrum analyzer of your own, you won't get a great idea of what band to choose anyway.
It seems like it makes perfect sense for the device itself to listen to the RF spectrum and pick a band based on its own analysis, ideally dynamically to adapt to changing conditions.
The only time where manual band selection makes any sense is in a highly engineered rollout where you're attempting to do fit a lot of clients and APs into a single space and you adjust band and power in conjunction with standalone RF analysis.
Scalping -- the resale of tickets above face value -- is perfectly legal in Minnesota.
And it wouldn't exist at all if the tickets were priced originally relative to demand or if they used a reverse auction process that started at very high prices and reduced them in step with demand. The notion that popular tickets should be cheap and abundant is absurd.
It's an accident of history.
Newspapers have always had a tabloid tendency and were in many ways worse in the 1920s and 1930s, the era of the Hearst newspaper empire and Hearst's many political agendas which he used his newspaper empire to push. The mass media had characters like Father Coughlin and his Breitbart levels of populism and antisemitism.
It's only after WW II that the newspapers become something of a serious and more neutral force, but even then they were glossing over some facts, such as ignoring Presidential affairs. By the early 1970s, we have the dawn of the crusading liberal in the form of Woodward and Bernstein, taking Nixon down with their Watergate reporting and the NY Times with the Pentagon Papers.
In spite of this, I think in this era the media was taking its role as the Fourth Estate seriously and with an academic level of introspection and attempted neutrality.
I think it began taking a further turn for the worse when CNN and the 24 hour cable news network came around. Not only did it help hollow out newspaper publishing as a business, but it inaugurated the relentless news cycle where fresh content had to be sourced every few hours, leading the press to spend its time not developing good stories, but searching for the next quote, the next nugget or the next angle.
The Internet made the 24 hour news cycle worse. Where CNN made new TV news every few hours, now newspapers were expected to have something new every time the page was reloaded. Social media and clickbait made it worse, making it harder for the consumer to sift news from hype.
With all of this, I don't think the major news outlets have made it better. I've subscribed to the NY Times for 20-odd years and I think it's journalistic neutrality has been seriously in question for years now. In this election cycle, the bias for Hillary has been palpable. Their article choices and language always made it harder for Sanders to appear serious, and Hillary was given every pass and very positive coverage. Once Trump became the leading Republican candidate, they were writing "analysis" headlines questioning their obligation to neutrality. To me it seemed fairly clear that journalism itself was operating in a demographic bubble of like-thinking liberals bought into the Hillary agenda.