Are you being sarcastic? because this is exactly what just happened during the great recession. Enormous amounts of money were added to the M1 money supply by central banks the world over, but rich people chose to stash it all away and the result is little to no inflation.
he would now be the candidate of the Democratic party.
Hmm... I wonder if he would have been competitive in the general election though. If only we had an example of a more radical candidate who gets chosen by the radicalized base but fails to connect with the average voter.
We need to plan for a future where people work a lot less hours. Either 4 days a week, or the standard 5 days but with three month vacations. We already have examples of how this can work. There are plenty of YouTube channels of people who work for a while and then travel for a while e.g. Sailing La Vagabonde, Kombi Life, SV Delos (or at least they did before they became YouTube celebrities).
For people in NorthAmerica both of these options will sound shocking and impossible to implement in practice, even though Europe is not far from already having those in place***
*** This is not unlike universal healthcare, which works quite well in every developed country in the world, yet it is assumed to be utopic (or straight out communist) in the USA.
that is a psychopathic compulsive liar and traitor
Now you have me really confused. I thought you were talking about Hillary, but the proven compulsive liar is Trump. He lies every 3 minutes or 75% of the time. It is difficult to find a single thing he hasn't spoken in favor of and against it, including Clinton's performance as secretary of state and her stamina.
that has written, by her own hand,
So we are back to Hillary, because of the two the only one who can write by her own hand is her.
that she needs "compliant and uneducated" voters to win,
And now back to Trump "I love the uneducated", "I don't need women to win" candidate.
Funny how the left project what Killary actually is onto Trump.
Now you are talking about yourself, where you just projected half of Trump's most defining characteristics onto Hillary.
The uneducated (by design) Demo voters
Study after study has shown that the uneducated tend to lean Republican over Democrat.
They never learn, by design.
In the last eight years only one party has had two post-mortems after losing the presidential election that were completely ignored. I'll let you work out which party was that.
So realize that even the Demo 'leadership' thinks you're an Idiot when you vote for them.
Again more projection. Democrats promise, and overall deliver improved economic conditions for the lowest level (combination of welfare, medicare, higher minimum wages, lower taxes for poor people). Republicans for the most part deliver improved conditions for rich people and businesses which so far in 20 years of republican administrations since trickle down economics was first proposed have failed to reach the bottom classes.
So if you are poor (like most of the Southern Red States) and vote Republican you are either an idiot, or motivated by other considerations that are more important to you than $, such as I don't know, hmm, can't think of any....
They are comparing doctor diagnosis vs. self diagnosis. It doesn't surprise me at all that doctors are better.
However if we compare doctor vs. doctor&software the latter wins by a mile. The best diagnosis software out there is Isabel HealthCare with proven, peer-reviewed results.
For all we know her friends at the CIA and NSA may be the ones behind the hacks. She's definitely pissed off enough people there with her security "lapses".
Actually most of the security establishment, including many well know republicans have come out and endorsed her.
Trump on the other hand, who likes to brag about his 200 generals and admirals behind him forgets to point out that this is only 2/5ths the number of generals who supported Mitt Romney.
This is just hysterics. All indications are that Hillary would be an ok candidate. As for Trump the problem is we just can't tell. He gives no specifics. "Make America great again". Well duh! we can all agree that we want America to be great. I mean, you might disagree 100% with Obama, but I'm sure Barry spends every waking minute of his life trying to make this country as good as it can be. Where we differ is in the specifics, Democrats believe that the government has a role to play in a developed country, Republicanss thiink that if you give enough tax breaks, the rest happens by magic.
So what is the specific way to make America great again as per Trump? no one knows. He never goes into specifics. So all we have to judge him is his previous record as administrator, and this one is quite a bit worse than Hillary's: bankrupt many times, not a single business partner has something positive to say about him, short-tempered and easily baited, lies pathologically, mistreats women.
In a socially mobile country anyone can be made poor by temporary circumstances.
Unfortunately the US is no longer a socially mobile country. Once you get rid of inheritance taxes you are more likely to succeed because the wealth you inherited (Koch brothers, Trump, Mitt Romney, etc.) than by wealth you created on your own (Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Mark Cuban).
She will appoint three. It would have been two if republicans had accepted the moderate judge put forth by Obama. Of those likely two, one of them is already a liberal, so it doesn't make much difference. I fail to see why it would make such a radical change in the SC composition. I think you are making a tempest in a teapot. Additionally, she would have to have it confirmed by a Republican Senate.
So as I said, I fail to see why you think it would make such a radical difference. You might have been watching too much chicken little TV and not enough reality. Heck here we are at the end of eight years of Obama, and none of dire predictions from the GOP and Fox news came to pass. You can accuse Obama of many things, but moving forward a radical change is not one of them. He barely got anything done, outside ObamaCare and withdrawing from Iraq, which even Trump agrees was a necessary move.
I hope you are right. He didn't own the Republican party, but he has the voters and lately also the politicians. Heck even Ted Cruz has now said to vote for him, and he hasn't won the election yet. If he wins likely the entire party apparatus will grease up and surrender to him.
I'm not saying you shouldn't vote for him, I'm saying: "you are playing with fire. Best case scenario, he might turn out to be an incompetent idiot a la Bush Jr. or worst case scenario he turns out to be a Hitler Jr.". Or you can vote for Clinton and hope that this election sent a message to both parties.
And that's exactly why many Germans voted for the upstart National Socialist party. They were outsiders and the system wasn't working very well under the old parties. Quote on the 1933 election:
Three factors at least have to be taken into account in explaining how, nevertheless, the Fuhrer cult could, within a strikingly short time, extend its hold to wide sections of the population, and eventually to the overwhelming majority of Germans. Of crucial significance was the widespread feeling that the Weimar political system and leadership was utterly bankrupt. In such conditions, the image of a dynamic, energetic, 'youthful' leader offering a decisive change of direction and backed by an army of fanatical followers was not altogether unattractive. Many with grave doubts were prepared to give Hitler a chance. And compared with the pathetic helplessness of his predecessors as Chancellor, the apparent drive and tempo of government activity in the months after he took office seemed impressive.
Secondly, the gross underestimation of Hitler again paved the way for at first reluctant or condescending, and then wholehearted, enthusiasm for the way he apparently mastered within such a short time the internal political situation which had seemed beyond the capabilities of an upstart rabble-rouser. Thirdly, and most importantly, Hitler embodied an already well-established, extensive ideological consensus which also embraced most of those, except the Left, who had still not given him their vote in March 1933. Its chief elements were virulent anti-Marxism and the perceived need for a powerful counter to the forces of the Left; deep hostility towards the failed democratic system and a belief that strong, authoritarian leadership was necessary for any recovery; and a widespread feeling, even extending to parts of the Left, that Germany had been badly wronged at Versailles, and was threatened by enemies on all sides. This pre-existing wide consensus offered the potential for strong support for a national leader who could appear to offer absolute commitment, personal sacrifice, and selfless striving in the cause of inner unity and. outward strength.
As president he will most likely accomplish very little.
Maybe, but you do know that's what people thought when Hitler was first elected in Germany with a minority government, right?
They thought he was a harmless idiot. Instead he took full control, imprisoned his enemies and never called for an election again. Will Trump do that? I don't know, but the mere possibility that he could scares the bejeezus out of me.
As for Clinton, his platform and policies would be considered right wing in every single developed country in the world except the USA. I don't know why they are so scary to you.
Heck, I was against Romney but I never thought electing him would be the Armageddon. Why do you think Clinton would be so radically different?
Oh, I'm not defending illegal immigration. A country definitely has a right to take measures against illegal immigration. My claim is that a wall with Mexico is a red-herring that serves no actual purpose, since it would be ineffective. It's pure demagoguery.
Most countries in the world keep illegal immigration at very low levels by simply having high administrative penalties for employers who hire illegal immigrants.
The reason we don't have those is because they were tried in the 80s and turns out capitalists need underpaid illegal workers so they lobbied hard against those rules.
Why is Trump not asking for penalties against employers? because he isn't serious about it. All he's trying to do is capture the vote of well meaning simpletons who cannot see through his lies.
Mark Cuban addressed this. He was initially pro-Trump, but then he noticed that there wasn't anything behind Trump's bluster and aggressive rhetoric, so he's voting for Clinton. Anyone who knows Mark Cuban is well aware that he is the furthest thing from a democrat or a liberal, but he's definitely a smart man and a smart businessman. This should tell you a lot.
Hillary takes a different approach, by shielding most of her assets inside the Clinton Foundation. Frankly, that's a lot worse, because the Clinton Foundation is pretending to be a non-profit organization.
The above statement is 100% false. The Clinton Foundation does not "shield" assets any more than any other foundation. To this date not a single piece of evidence has come out to show that the Clinton Foundation is a scam, or not for profit.
The only known issue is that one can question the morality of taking a donation from Saudi Arabia, just like we question the morality of Donald Trump paying for a self-portrait using his foundation assets. We also question the Foundation making a political contribution. This one might actually be illegal, by the way. People are still looking into it, though, so I'm holding judgement on that one until the facts are out.
Or you can explain why corporation B can legitimately spend on politics, but corporation C can't.
Because the rules changed. The final arbiter is the Supreme Court, they said it is fair game, so fair game it is.
I might have been against the forward pass in football (approved 1906) but I would be a fool not to use it today in the NFL. This doesn't make me a hypocrite. You move on, accept the decision, and play the game according to the (new) rules.
Not a problem. The border is thousands of miles long, so crossing it without being noticed is a piece of cake.
For example, Israel has two big walls, one relatively small and heavily guarded with the West Bank, another with the Gaza strip and not heavily guarded. This last one is riddled with tunnels and serves no good effect.
Once you heavily guard the border the wall itself is actually not necessary. So as I said, the whole wall proposal is meant to capture simpletons who cannot think this through. A much cheaper and much more effective option is to simply implement and enforce regulations against hiring illegal immigrants.
You are wrong. You need the run time because it provides services such as GC and profiling.
At install time, ART compiles apps using the on-device dex2oat tool. This utility accepts DEX files as input and generates a compiled app executable for the target device.
The # of SoCs is neither here not there. You need to have the ART compiled to the specific SoC, when you do that you can make the AOT module generate native code for the specific SoC if you so wish.
I'm not an expert on ART, but I'm pretty sure you are wrong on this one.
The H1B program does not encourage you to hire outside. On paper you are supposed to pay more than the going rate, the job needs to be advertised first, and any qualified national has priority over foreigners.
Which is exactly why Trump proposes a useless wall that anyone with a ladder can get climb over.
If the real goal was to stem illegal immigration simply having and enforcing high penalties on employers of illegal workers would take care of the problem.
The whole idea of the wall is to convince simpletons and the uneducated that you will do something, when you really don't intend to.
Same with the H1B visa program. On paper it is actually a very good thing: it allows you to bring workers from abroad in cases of local shortages. However, in practice it is being used to bring Indian IT workers which are trained by the US IT workers they are replacing. We do not need to change the H1B program, we need to make sure it is used the way the law says it should. Why it doesn't? just like the parent post side, employers make the proper campaign contributions to make sure it doesn't happen.
It's just "ahead-of-time" compiled libraries, same as the Android ART.
Say what? From wikipedia:
Unlike Dalvik, ART introduces the use of ahead-of-time (AOT) compilation by compiling entire applications into native machine code upon their installation.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you being sarcastic? because this is exactly what just happened during the great recession. Enormous amounts of money were added to the M1 money supply by central banks the world over, but rich people chose to stash it all away and the result is little to no inflation.
he would now be the candidate of the Democratic party.
Hmm... I wonder if he would have been competitive in the general election though. If only we had an example of a more radical candidate who gets chosen by the radicalized base but fails to connect with the average voter.
Nope, can't think of any.
We need to plan for a future where people work a lot less hours. Either 4 days a week, or the standard 5 days but with three month vacations. We already have examples of how this can work. There are plenty of YouTube channels of people who work for a while and then travel for a while e.g. Sailing La Vagabonde, Kombi Life, SV Delos (or at least they did before they became YouTube celebrities).
For people in NorthAmerica both of these options will sound shocking and impossible to implement in practice, even though Europe is not far from already having those in place***
*** This is not unlike universal healthcare, which works quite well in every developed country in the world, yet it is assumed to be utopic (or straight out communist) in the USA.
Because a mass murderer
Not that we are exaggerating or anything.
that is a psychopathic compulsive liar and traitor
Now you have me really confused. I thought you were talking about Hillary, but the proven compulsive liar is Trump. He lies every 3 minutes or 75% of the time. It is difficult to find a single thing he hasn't spoken in favor of and against it, including Clinton's performance as secretary of state and her stamina.
that has written, by her own hand,
So we are back to Hillary, because of the two the only one who can write by her own hand is her.
that she needs "compliant and uneducated" voters to win,
And now back to Trump "I love the uneducated", "I don't need women to win" candidate.
Funny how the left project what Killary actually is onto Trump.
Now you are talking about yourself, where you just projected half of Trump's most defining characteristics onto Hillary.
The uneducated (by design) Demo voters
Study after study has shown that the uneducated tend to lean Republican over Democrat.
They never learn, by design.
In the last eight years only one party has had two post-mortems after losing the presidential election that were completely ignored. I'll let you work out which party was that.
So realize that even the Demo 'leadership' thinks you're an Idiot when you vote for them.
Again more projection. Democrats promise, and overall deliver improved economic conditions for the lowest level (combination of welfare, medicare, higher minimum wages, lower taxes for poor people). Republicans for the most part deliver improved conditions for rich people and businesses which so far in 20 years of republican administrations since trickle down economics was first proposed have failed to reach the bottom classes.
So if you are poor (like most of the Southern Red States) and vote Republican you are either an idiot, or motivated by other considerations that are more important to you than $, such as I don't know, hmm, can't think of any....
They are comparing doctor diagnosis vs. self diagnosis. It doesn't surprise me at all that doctors are better.
However if we compare doctor vs. doctor&software the latter wins by a mile. The best diagnosis software out there is Isabel HealthCare with proven, peer-reviewed results.
President Trump, we have good news and bad news.
The good news is that Mexicans agreed to build the wall. In fact over forty million Mexican volunteers totally finished it in a matter of weeks.
The bad news is that they built it while standing on our side.
For all we know her friends at the CIA and NSA may be the ones behind the hacks. She's definitely pissed off enough people there with her security "lapses".
Actually most of the security establishment, including many well know republicans have come out and endorsed her.
Trump on the other hand, who likes to brag about his 200 generals and admirals behind him forgets to point out that this is only 2/5ths the number of generals who supported Mitt Romney.
This is just hysterics. All indications are that Hillary would be an ok candidate. As for Trump the problem is we just can't tell. He gives no specifics. "Make America great again". Well duh! we can all agree that we want America to be great. I mean, you might disagree 100% with Obama, but I'm sure Barry spends every waking minute of his life trying to make this country as good as it can be. Where we differ is in the specifics, Democrats believe that the government has a role to play in a developed country, Republicanss thiink that if you give enough tax breaks, the rest happens by magic.
So what is the specific way to make America great again as per Trump? no one knows. He never goes into specifics. So all we have to judge him is his previous record as administrator, and this one is quite a bit worse than Hillary's: bankrupt many times, not a single business partner has something positive to say about him, short-tempered and easily baited, lies pathologically, mistreats women.
Dalvik is last generation. Latest iteration is the Android Run Time (ART) which compiles once at installation time, according to the specific device.
And you think they do so because they enjoy being poor, or because they'd like to get more hours but there are no jobs to be had?
In a socially mobile country anyone can be made poor by temporary circumstances.
Unfortunately the US is no longer a socially mobile country. Once you get rid of inheritance taxes you are more likely to succeed because the wealth you inherited (Koch brothers, Trump, Mitt Romney, etc.) than by wealth you created on your own (Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Mark Cuban).
She will appoint three. It would have been two if republicans had accepted the moderate judge put forth by Obama. Of those likely two, one of them is already a liberal, so it doesn't make much difference. I fail to see why it would make such a radical change in the SC composition. I think you are making a tempest in a teapot. Additionally, she would have to have it confirmed by a Republican Senate.
So as I said, I fail to see why you think it would make such a radical difference. You might have been watching too much chicken little TV and not enough reality. Heck here we are at the end of eight years of Obama, and none of dire predictions from the GOP and Fox news came to pass. You can accuse Obama of many things, but moving forward a radical change is not one of them. He barely got anything done, outside ObamaCare and withdrawing from Iraq, which even Trump agrees was a necessary move.
I hope you are right. He didn't own the Republican party, but he has the voters and lately also the politicians. Heck even Ted Cruz has now said to vote for him, and he hasn't won the election yet. If he wins likely the entire party apparatus will grease up and surrender to him.
I'm not saying you shouldn't vote for him, I'm saying: "you are playing with fire. Best case scenario, he might turn out to be an incompetent idiot a la Bush Jr. or worst case scenario he turns out to be a Hitler Jr.". Or you can vote for Clinton and hope that this election sent a message to both parties.
And that's exactly why many Germans voted for the upstart National Socialist party. They were outsiders and the system wasn't working very well under the old parties. Quote on the 1933 election:
Three factors at least have to be taken into account in explaining how, nevertheless, the Fuhrer cult could, within a strikingly short time, extend its hold to wide sections of the population, and eventually to the overwhelming majority of Germans. Of crucial significance was the widespread feeling that the Weimar political system and leadership was utterly bankrupt. In such conditions, the image of a dynamic, energetic, 'youthful' leader offering a decisive change of direction and backed by an army of fanatical followers was not altogether unattractive. Many with grave doubts were prepared to give Hitler a chance. And compared with the pathetic helplessness of his predecessors as Chancellor, the apparent drive and tempo of government activity in the months after he took office seemed impressive.
Secondly, the gross underestimation of Hitler again paved the way for at first reluctant or condescending, and then wholehearted, enthusiasm for the way he apparently mastered within such a short time the internal political situation which had seemed beyond the capabilities of an upstart rabble-rouser. Thirdly, and most importantly, Hitler embodied an already well-established, extensive ideological consensus which also embraced most of those, except the Left, who had still not given him their vote in March 1933. Its chief elements were virulent anti-Marxism and the perceived need for a powerful counter to the forces of the Left; deep hostility towards the failed democratic system and a belief that strong, authoritarian leadership was necessary for any recovery; and a widespread feeling, even extending to parts of the Left, that Germany had been badly wronged at Versailles, and was threatened by enemies on all sides. This pre-existing wide consensus offered the potential for strong support for a national leader who could appear to offer absolute commitment, personal sacrifice, and selfless striving in the cause of inner unity and. outward strength.
http://www.historytoday.com/ia...
No, we were told it was against the rules, which is why it went all the way to the Supreme Court. That is a fact.
And yes, if the rules change again, I definitely want anyone who violates them arrested.
As president he will most likely accomplish very little.
Maybe, but you do know that's what people thought when Hitler was first elected in Germany with a minority government, right?
They thought he was a harmless idiot. Instead he took full control, imprisoned his enemies and never called for an election again. Will Trump do that? I don't know, but the mere possibility that he could scares the bejeezus out of me.
As for Clinton, his platform and policies would be considered right wing in every single developed country in the world except the USA. I don't know why they are so scary to you.
Heck, I was against Romney but I never thought electing him would be the Armageddon. Why do you think Clinton would be so radically different?
Oh, I'm not defending illegal immigration. A country definitely has a right to take measures against illegal immigration. My claim is that a wall with Mexico is a red-herring that serves no actual purpose, since it would be ineffective. It's pure demagoguery.
Most countries in the world keep illegal immigration at very low levels by simply having high administrative penalties for employers who hire illegal immigrants.
The reason we don't have those is because they were tried in the 80s and turns out capitalists need underpaid illegal workers so they lobbied hard against those rules.
Why is Trump not asking for penalties against employers? because he isn't serious about it. All he's trying to do is capture the vote of well meaning simpletons who cannot see through his lies.
Mark Cuban addressed this. He was initially pro-Trump, but then he noticed that there wasn't anything behind Trump's bluster and aggressive rhetoric, so he's voting for Clinton. Anyone who knows Mark Cuban is well aware that he is the furthest thing from a democrat or a liberal, but he's definitely a smart man and a smart businessman. This should tell you a lot.
Hillary takes a different approach, by shielding most of her assets inside the Clinton Foundation. Frankly, that's a lot worse, because the Clinton Foundation is pretending to be a non-profit organization.
The above statement is 100% false. The Clinton Foundation does not "shield" assets any more than any other foundation. To this date not a single piece of evidence has come out to show that the Clinton Foundation is a scam, or not for profit.
The only known issue is that one can question the morality of taking a donation from Saudi Arabia, just like we question the morality of Donald Trump paying for a self-portrait using his foundation assets. We also question the Foundation making a political contribution. This one might actually be illegal, by the way. People are still looking into it, though, so I'm holding judgement on that one until the facts are out.
Or you can explain why corporation B can legitimately spend on politics, but corporation C can't.
Because the rules changed. The final arbiter is the Supreme Court, they said it is fair game, so fair game it is.
I might have been against the forward pass in football (approved 1906) but I would be a fool not to use it today in the NFL. This doesn't make me a hypocrite. You move on, accept the decision, and play the game according to the (new) rules.
Not a problem. The border is thousands of miles long, so crossing it without being noticed is a piece of cake.
For example, Israel has two big walls, one relatively small and heavily guarded with the West Bank, another with the Gaza strip and not heavily guarded. This last one is riddled with tunnels and serves no good effect.
Once you heavily guard the border the wall itself is actually not necessary. So as I said, the whole wall proposal is meant to capture simpletons who cannot think this through. A much cheaper and much more effective option is to simply implement and enforce regulations against hiring illegal immigrants.
You are wrong. You need the run time because it provides services such as GC and profiling.
At install time, ART compiles apps using the on-device dex2oat tool. This utility accepts DEX files as input and generates a compiled app executable for the target device.
The # of SoCs is neither here not there. You need to have the ART compiled to the specific SoC, when you do that you can make the AOT module generate native code for the specific SoC if you so wish.
I'm not an expert on ART, but I'm pretty sure you are wrong on this one.
A few facts that are worth highlighting:
1) Obama has increases border security tremendously.
2) His administration deported more illegal immigrants in his first three years in office than GWBush did in his entire eight years in office.
3) The number of illegal immigrants in the USA is at a 10 year low and this decline is the only reduction in the last five decades.
The H1B program does not encourage you to hire outside. On paper you are supposed to pay more than the going rate, the job needs to be advertised first, and any qualified national has priority over foreigners.
Which is exactly why Trump proposes a useless wall that anyone with a ladder can get climb over.
If the real goal was to stem illegal immigration simply having and enforcing high penalties on employers of illegal workers would take care of the problem.
The whole idea of the wall is to convince simpletons and the uneducated that you will do something, when you really don't intend to.
Same with the H1B visa program. On paper it is actually a very good thing: it allows you to bring workers from abroad in cases of local shortages. However, in practice it is being used to bring Indian IT workers which are trained by the US IT workers they are replacing. We do not need to change the H1B program, we need to make sure it is used the way the law says it should. Why it doesn't? just like the parent post side, employers make the proper campaign contributions to make sure it doesn't happen.
It's just "ahead-of-time" compiled libraries, same as the Android ART.
Say what? From wikipedia:
Unlike Dalvik, ART introduces the use of ahead-of-time (AOT) compilation by compiling entire applications into native machine code upon their installation.