We have two kids and drive a Renault Zoe. It's plenty big enough for them and their kit, and it's small size means it can get round town (and SUVs) easily. Instant torque is helpful for that, too.
Where are your examples of the specific practices I alluded to? Because that's what would be needed to show I was wrong. Are you ignorant of this or are you ignoring it because you don't have examples?
As I said before, you guys are *terrible* at arguments.
Gosh, what would we do without you? National Grid must be kicking themselves for not measuring actual generation, as well as capacity. Except of course they are...
Yes, he is out by a factor of 659. He would have spotted this if he'd have done the maths the other way round: "how much money does a 659mW windfarm running full tilt generate over a given period at £65.36 per mW?" In 1 hour: £65.36*659 = £43k In 24 hours: £1.033m In 1 year: £377m In 3 years: £1.13bn In 1,746 years: £281bn... If my 10 year old daughter made that kind of basic mistake in her math problems, I'd be pretty pissed off with her.
I said "there are no cases" twice. Maybe try counting better. I also tied my statements to two specific practices, and neither you nor anyone else has given an examples of the specific practices I cited.
Really, you guys are *terrible* at arguments. Just awful.
I said they *could* kick them out. They obviously don't want to. So club members obviously have a lot of leeway. But it's certainly a conceivable option. If a country committed genocide or began a war with another EU country, I think they'd be kicked out.
Whatever the EU does, the Hungarian government will seek to use it to rally support. I mean, duh. So what? That's just a question of tactics and strategy on the part of the EU and Hungary. Personally, I think relatively few Hungarians are likely to become more avid haters of the EU and backers of their government on the basis of a ruling about mobile payments and state monopolies, but by all means take a different view.
Is that really how you think arguments work? If you can find a single counter-example, it disproves the assertion that side A does something much more than side B?
Why would you think that? Are you stupid? Surely no-one can be that stupid.
You people are all so fucking stupid, it's depressing.
The EU is a club. It costs money to join, there are rules to follow, and there are benefits of membership, like frictionless access to a market of several hundred million people. With the exception of the money, this is no different from every international agreement between two or more countries. If Hungary wants to have airlines flying into its airports and through its airspace, then it must agree to be bound by the various treaties that govern international aviation, which also impose onerous requirements on what it can and cannot do.
You people getting your knickers in a twist over sovereignty are the epitome of Randian stupidity. And like the Randians, what's particularly galling is that you actually think you're bright.
Except that this isn't actually what happens in practice. There are no cases, for example, of a Democrat candidate who is also personally in charge of the count in their state. There are no cases of Democrat suppression of the vote. REDMAP was a Republican project. Etc.
It's really not taking part in a manual count, though, is it? It's trusting that a screen is telling you something meaningful about the integrity of an election.
I get that blockchain is supposed to make it impossible for someone to dupe the system such that all ten people in your example can see a fraud has been attempted, but I don't trust that the technology genuinely protects against attack.
And yet we somehow do online banking and online shopping. While they're at it, they could hack into the PC's tallying the paper ballots. Significantly smaller target than 51% of the voters.
*Precisely* this kind of hack of PC's tallying votes is already suspected to be happening at a significant scale in the US. It isn't a situation that is made better by more use of computers, whereas it is a situation made better by more use of manual counting.
You don't want a single person counting all the votes. You want it to be a mass effort to reduce the impact of any single person deliberately miscounting.
The guarantees you are looking for are simply not there. As soon as a black box is introduced, no-one can ever be sure that a vote that was cast has been counted correctly. It's as simple as that. Just because I press the button marked R and the machine tells me that it's recorded my vote as R doesn't mean it actually has, and there's no way for anyone to check this. Not least because it's a secret ballot, so any checking has to be done after the fact, without knowing what vote I cast in the first place. Crypto can't help with this.
I part agree and part don't. There's also the fact that documentation can be made more or less onerous, depending on how it's designed. In the same way as it's annoying as a patient to be asked whether you're allergic to penicillin 15 times during a hospital stay, so it's annoying as a doctor to have to record the date when this is something the system ought to be able to record automagically. This is to do with human-centred design and UX, not whether a system is electronic or paper-based.
You know what? People who create forms can cope with more than two choices, as can the people that fill them in. It's never just been Mr and Mrs, has it? There's always been Dr and Prof and Rev etc.
This is just displacement complaining because you feel uncomfortable that gender and sex are more complicated for some people than you want them to be. You can cope. Honestly, you can.
Worse is pretty subjective. But it's certainly just as tough, if not considerably tougher. Long hours, relatively low pay, physically demanding, mentally exhausting, lots of accountability but relatively little independence, etc.
As for farms, let's quote a faith-based organisation that works to alleviate the conditions of farmers: "Farm workers are among the poorest workers in this country. Child farm workers risk their safety, health, and education working our fields because their parents can’t earn a living wage. Hazardous conditions are routine, including pesticide exposure, extreme heat and lack of shade and adequate clean drinking water.
You don't see smoking on that list either. That's because smoking and pollution cause the diseases that actually kill people: COPD, lung cancers, strokes, heart disease.
I'm aware of the difference between rates and absolutes. But the OP made a claim about absolutes, not rates.
And it's fairly obvious that the story is: we are seeing a decline in rates, but population growth means that absolute morbidity and mortality are growing overall. That overall growth is creating additional burdens for health systems around the world.
Slashdot Mirror
We have two kids and drive a Renault Zoe. It's plenty big enough for them and their kit, and it's small size means it can get round town (and SUVs) easily. Instant torque is helpful for that, too.
Where are your examples of the specific practices I alluded to? Because that's what would be needed to show I was wrong. Are you ignorant of this or are you ignoring it because you don't have examples?
As I said before, you guys are *terrible* at arguments.
Gosh, what would we do without you? National Grid must be kicking themselves for not measuring actual generation, as well as capacity. Except of course they are...
Yes, he is out by a factor of 659. He would have spotted this if he'd have done the maths the other way round: "how much money does a 659mW windfarm running full tilt generate over a given period at £65.36 per mW?"
In 1 hour: £65.36*659 = £43k
In 24 hours: £1.033m
In 1 year: £377m
In 3 years: £1.13bn
In 1,746 years: £281bn...
If my 10 year old daughter made that kind of basic mistake in her math problems, I'd be pretty pissed off with her.
I said "there are no cases" twice. Maybe try counting better. I also tied my statements to two specific practices, and neither you nor anyone else has given an examples of the specific practices I cited.
Really, you guys are *terrible* at arguments. Just awful.
I said they *could* kick them out. They obviously don't want to. So club members obviously have a lot of leeway. But it's certainly a conceivable option. If a country committed genocide or began a war with another EU country, I think they'd be kicked out.
Whatever the EU does, the Hungarian government will seek to use it to rally support. I mean, duh. So what? That's just a question of tactics and strategy on the part of the EU and Hungary. Personally, I think relatively few Hungarians are likely to become more avid haters of the EU and backers of their government on the basis of a ruling about mobile payments and state monopolies, but by all means take a different view.
Is that really how you think arguments work? If you can find a single counter-example, it disproves the assertion that side A does something much more than side B?
Why would you think that? Are you stupid? Surely no-one can be that stupid.
So supply the link
They can reduce the benefits of EU membership, such as payments, access to markets, etc. Eventually, they could kick them out.
Very coy, that Rothschild allusion.
First time I've seen anyone on Slashdot worry about letting their antisemitism show through in technicolour.
You people are all so fucking stupid, it's depressing.
The EU is a club. It costs money to join, there are rules to follow, and there are benefits of membership, like frictionless access to a market of several hundred million people. With the exception of the money, this is no different from every international agreement between two or more countries. If Hungary wants to have airlines flying into its airports and through its airspace, then it must agree to be bound by the various treaties that govern international aviation, which also impose onerous requirements on what it can and cannot do.
You people getting your knickers in a twist over sovereignty are the epitome of Randian stupidity. And like the Randians, what's particularly galling is that you actually think you're bright.
Except that this isn't actually what happens in practice. There are no cases, for example, of a Democrat candidate who is also personally in charge of the count in their state. There are no cases of Democrat suppression of the vote. REDMAP was a Republican project. Etc.
It's really not taking part in a manual count, though, is it? It's trusting that a screen is telling you something meaningful about the integrity of an election.
I get that blockchain is supposed to make it impossible for someone to dupe the system such that all ten people in your example can see a fraud has been attempted, but I don't trust that the technology genuinely protects against attack.
And yet we somehow do online banking and online shopping. While they're at it, they could hack into the PC's tallying the paper ballots. Significantly smaller target than 51% of the voters.
*Precisely* this kind of hack of PC's tallying votes is already suspected to be happening at a significant scale in the US. It isn't a situation that is made better by more use of computers, whereas it is a situation made better by more use of manual counting.
You don't want a single person counting all the votes. You want it to be a mass effort to reduce the impact of any single person deliberately miscounting.
The guarantees you are looking for are simply not there. As soon as a black box is introduced, no-one can ever be sure that a vote that was cast has been counted correctly. It's as simple as that. Just because I press the button marked R and the machine tells me that it's recorded my vote as R doesn't mean it actually has, and there's no way for anyone to check this. Not least because it's a secret ballot, so any checking has to be done after the fact, without knowing what vote I cast in the first place. Crypto can't help with this.
Spot on.
They are hammers in search of a nail.
I part agree and part don't. There's also the fact that documentation can be made more or less onerous, depending on how it's designed. In the same way as it's annoying as a patient to be asked whether you're allergic to penicillin 15 times during a hospital stay, so it's annoying as a doctor to have to record the date when this is something the system ought to be able to record automagically. This is to do with human-centred design and UX, not whether a system is electronic or paper-based.
You know what? People who create forms can cope with more than two choices, as can the people that fill them in. It's never just been Mr and Mrs, has it? There's always been Dr and Prof and Rev etc.
This is just displacement complaining because you feel uncomfortable that gender and sex are more complicated for some people than you want them to be. You can cope. Honestly, you can.
Just want to check -- would you consider the work paramedics do to be real work? How about railway engineers? What about retail bank staff?
Because there are significant numbers of paramedics, railway engineers, and retail bank staff doing real work on iPads.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.v3.co.uk/v3-uk/new...
http://www.sourcingfocus.com/s...
Worse is pretty subjective. But it's certainly just as tough, if not considerably tougher. Long hours, relatively low pay, physically demanding, mentally exhausting, lots of accountability but relatively little independence, etc.
As for farms, let's quote a faith-based organisation that works to alleviate the conditions of farmers: "Farm workers are among the poorest workers in this country. Child farm workers risk their safety, health, and education working our fields because their parents can’t earn a living wage. Hazardous conditions are routine, including pesticide exposure, extreme heat and lack of shade and adequate clean drinking water.
Agricultural work is hard work."
You don't see smoking on that list either. That's because smoking and pollution cause the diseases that actually kill people: COPD, lung cancers, strokes, heart disease.
Not sure what point you wish to make re the map.
I'm aware of the difference between rates and absolutes. But the OP made a claim about absolutes, not rates.
And it's fairly obvious that the story is: we are seeing a decline in rates, but population growth means that absolute morbidity and mortality are growing overall. That overall growth is creating additional burdens for health systems around the world.
Sounds like a smart arsed nobber commenting from the sidelines and imagining their own shit don't stink.