It's not about Obama, it's about fighting misconceptions about liberal financial policies (such as Obama's). Misconceptions that are partially responsible for putting "the current president" in place, and that may give you more of the same if you're not careful.
This (and even more the use of "duopoly" in TFS) needs at least a little bit of nuance. Duracell alkalines almost consistently start leaking when discharged fully. While that's something one should never do on purpose, it may easily happen on accident (e.g. heavy object placed on top of remote / wireless HID), and other brands have the problem much less (Duracell got hit by a class-action lawsuit because of this). This includes fine brands such as Varta (Germany), Panasonic (Japan) and GP (Hong Kong), who make some of the finest batteries money can buy, even if sometimes disguised under a store name (e.g. IKEA). You're only consigned to an (at least half-sucky) duopoly with (sometines sucky) off-brands on the side if you don't look any further than US brands.
I'm quite sure "POTUS" does have access to more accurate and detailed data on USPS than the average slashdot reader.
But Donald Trump, wouldn't trouble to avail himself of such facts.
True. Both nuances were already pointed out by other people, and implied. This being the internet, I guess I should have been more explicit about that.
Does that "and" compare to an economic crisis like the Great Depression?
The politifact link clarifies that "in US history" should actually be taken as "since 1929", which is one of the reasons why it got "mostly true". 1929 is the year starting from which US annual GDP (and growth thereof) data is available, and also coincides with both the Great Depression and the Hoover administration. Hoover went out of office in March 1933, and if you look at the raw data, you'll see that for the whole year of 1933 (so actually from begin 1933 to begin 1934), growth was a whopping 10%. Yes, this is all kinds of fscked up, but it is actually how you have to interpret the data to qualify Roscam's statement as "true". The 10% was of course a rebound effect of the great depression and a prelude to its resolution, as other economic indicators were still bad at the time; I don't think people would be very happy at all if, say, Trump were to give them that kind of 10%.
More generally spoken, the GDP made (to present standards) wild jumps up and down till about 1951, which made it pretty easy to achieve Roscam's artificial criterion of "a whole [calendar] year of 3 percent growth". After that there was a relative stability with average growth inching slightly lower every decade; eventually, someone was going to fall under that 3% threshold. Consequently, you can almost pick your president and adjust the 3% threshold to make him look "worse than any preceding president" ("almost" because of statistical noise).
TL;DR: with a lot of lawyering, Peter Roscam (R-Ill.) put together a carefully worded statement that would make Obama's economic record look quite bad when taken at face value, but that could easily be adapted to your president of choice and is therefore not all that meaningful. Politifact could't give it anything else than "mostly true" because the lawyering largely checks out, even though it's blatantly dishonest (and treading a thin line).
And you would have know all this if you'd given that politifact link an honest read.
Since neither you nor the AC I originally replied to bothered to provide a valid link, you'll allow me to bring my own: https://www.seattletimes.com/s...
Evergreen is no stranger to protests, but college President George Bridges said some students went too far in May when they interrupted faculty member Bret Weinstein’s class, and a day later pushed furniture against doors to create barricades during a takeover of the library building.
Surely you must agree that hardly qualifies as 'patrolling the campus with baseball bats on a seek-and-destroy mission against "nazis"'.
That's not surprising, since he became president in full subprime mortgage crisis, and long term trends point to a permanent slowdown in economic growth in the developed world.
FTFY.
Also, how backward do you have to be to think that coal is still a pillar of the economy? You (and Trump) are stuck in the 1800s, and while you can stand on the brakes of your own country's progress all you want, it won't stop the rest of the world from getting ahead of you. Even less so if you're squandering all your international political capital.
The pattern goes even further back. It conclusively disproves the myth that progressive governments would somehow be worse for the economy than conservative ones; in fact, the evidence points in the opposite direction (once you factor in the time it takes before you see the results).
Oooh, nice by-the-numbers fake news posting. Some kids pose with baseball bats for a cool picture with firm tongue-in-cheek ironic undercurrents, and suddenly you have leftists 'patrolling the campus with baseball bats on a seek-and-destroy mission against "nazis"'.
Perhaps you forgot how the economy did just fine in the beginning of the Dubya years, and only imploded somewhere near the end. It kept on doing bad in the beginning of the Obama years, and only started improving somewhere near the end. I wouldn't be so quick to laud Trump's excuses for economic policy...
Oh never mind, the 'customers said they don't need it' was paraphrased from the following sentence in TFA: 'Based on customer inputs, most of these products are implemented as “closed systems” and therefore are expected to have a lower likelihood of exposure to these vulnerabilities.' So that makes it more likely they were actually referring to the 'SoFIA 3GR': a low-powered Atom part.
* The second reason can be summed up as "...maybe it's time to for you to buy some new gear...", which is still pretty much in Intel's favor (of course there's always going to be folks who get pissy enough about it to buy AMD CPU gear, but I'm betting that since most folks only see these fixes as a hindrance, the number of people going to AMD over this is not much more than statistical noise...)
To me, the "customers said they don't need it" part (when applied to Bloomfield and Gulftown) sounds like "the crowd who's spent hundreds of dollars for a few % speed increase would wilfully opt out of the performance-crippling patches anyway". Though I've seen a few posts here contradicting that line of reasoning.
Not so many years ago, AMD started releasing roadmaps showing that it would largely ditch x86 in favor of a high-performance ARM architecture. Mebbe ask them how that worked out for them?
To save you some googling, they did eventually release an ARM product, but it's only seeing niche use, and AMD's chips are firmly on x86 once again.
While I very much agree this is close to the core of the problem, you have to admit that current part numbering schemes are wildly ridiculous (with Intel taking the cake). The manufacturers could at least put some semblance or real-life performance in these schemes, even if their respective competitors disagree with the measure being used.
It's like the fallacy that is commonly used to defend questionable journalism: "true objectivity does not exist, so why even try?"
(One possible answer: "be that as it may, there does exist something as a 'real world', and if everyone grossly misrepresents it based on a philosophical argument, it quickly goes to heck...")
Microsoft deliberately held back patches and fixes for Windows for god knows how long because it benefited the NSA.
Possibly, but Boeing held them back even longer, and I'm guessing for reasons at least equally lame (specifically, my best guess is "fear that a patch will break proprietary hack jo^H^H^H^H^H^H^H software packages running on some of those systems").
Really, Zuck??? People have been decrying for years how Facebook's policies were a threat to online privacy. You cannot possibly feign to be caught off-guard by this scandal when it was structurally due for roughly a decade.
No. Blackpowder detonates while smokeless powder just burns. There's a big difference which is why basically you can't legally buy blackpowder now. Hodgdon's Pyrodex that is not nearly as good is pretty much all you can buy now.
Nope, black powder deflagrates, just as smokeless powder. I suspect (depending on where you live) that the reason why you can't buy it may simply be lack of demand. It's a relatively weak explosive that leaves a nasty residue and plenty of acrid smoke. Why would anyone want to use it when there are dozens of other fuel/oxidizer combinations (not to mention smokeless powders) that are pretty much better at everything?
Slashdot Mirror
It's not about Obama, it's about fighting misconceptions about liberal financial policies (such as Obama's). Misconceptions that are partially responsible for putting "the current president" in place, and that may give you more of the same if you're not careful.
1) Off-brand sucks
This (and even more the use of "duopoly" in TFS) needs at least a little bit of nuance. Duracell alkalines almost consistently start leaking when discharged fully. While that's something one should never do on purpose, it may easily happen on accident (e.g. heavy object placed on top of remote / wireless HID), and other brands have the problem much less (Duracell got hit by a class-action lawsuit because of this). This includes fine brands such as Varta (Germany), Panasonic (Japan) and GP (Hong Kong), who make some of the finest batteries money can buy, even if sometimes disguised under a store name (e.g. IKEA). You're only consigned to an (at least half-sucky) duopoly with (sometines sucky) off-brands on the side if you don't look any further than US brands.
The problem is we built it in the first place without thinking how it could be abused.
Speak for yourself. I didn't build that. :-D
Naah, just visual rhetoric. A nice image, too. *Ssslurp*!
I'm quite sure "POTUS" does have access to more accurate and detailed data on USPS than the average slashdot reader. But Donald Trump, wouldn't trouble to avail himself of such facts.
True. Both nuances were already pointed out by other people, and implied. This being the internet, I guess I should have been more explicit about that.
POTUS ... good ... information ... *snicker* ... ability with finance ... BRUHAHAHAAA
*snort* Say, my good man, would you by any chance be interested in the bridge on this here picture? I can make you a really good price...
Does that "and" compare to an economic crisis like the Great Depression?
The politifact link clarifies that "in US history" should actually be taken as "since 1929", which is one of the reasons why it got "mostly true". 1929 is the year starting from which US annual GDP (and growth thereof) data is available, and also coincides with both the Great Depression and the Hoover administration. Hoover went out of office in March 1933, and if you look at the raw data, you'll see that for the whole year of 1933 (so actually from begin 1933 to begin 1934), growth was a whopping 10%. Yes, this is all kinds of fscked up, but it is actually how you have to interpret the data to qualify Roscam's statement as "true". The 10% was of course a rebound effect of the great depression and a prelude to its resolution, as other economic indicators were still bad at the time; I don't think people would be very happy at all if, say, Trump were to give them that kind of 10%.
More generally spoken, the GDP made (to present standards) wild jumps up and down till about 1951, which made it pretty easy to achieve Roscam's artificial criterion of "a whole [calendar] year of 3 percent growth". After that there was a relative stability with average growth inching slightly lower every decade; eventually, someone was going to fall under that 3% threshold. Consequently, you can almost pick your president and adjust the 3% threshold to make him look "worse than any preceding president" ("almost" because of statistical noise).
TL;DR: with a lot of lawyering, Peter Roscam (R-Ill.) put together a carefully worded statement that would make Obama's economic record look quite bad when taken at face value, but that could easily be adapted to your president of choice and is therefore not all that meaningful. Politifact could't give it anything else than "mostly true" because the lawyering largely checks out, even though it's blatantly dishonest (and treading a thin line).
And you would have know all this if you'd given that politifact link an honest read.
Try reading past "and".
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...
Evergreen is no stranger to protests, but college President George Bridges said some students went too far in May when they interrupted faculty member Bret Weinstein’s class, and a day later pushed furniture against doors to create barricades during a takeover of the library building.
Surely you must agree that hardly qualifies as 'patrolling the campus with baseball bats on a seek-and-destroy mission against "nazis"'.
That's not surprising, since he became president in full subprime mortgage crisis, and long term trends point to a permanent slowdown in economic growth in the developed world.
FTFY.
Also, how backward do you have to be to think that coal is still a pillar of the economy? You (and Trump) are stuck in the 1800s, and while you can stand on the brakes of your own country's progress all you want, it won't stop the rest of the world from getting ahead of you. Even less so if you're squandering all your international political capital.
The pattern goes even further back. It conclusively disproves the myth that progressive governments would somehow be worse for the economy than conservative ones; in fact, the evidence points in the opposite direction (once you factor in the time it takes before you see the results).
Oooh, nice by-the-numbers fake news posting. Some kids pose with baseball bats for a cool picture with firm tongue-in-cheek ironic undercurrents, and suddenly you have leftists 'patrolling the campus with baseball bats on a seek-and-destroy mission against "nazis"'.
Perhaps you forgot how the economy did just fine in the beginning of the Dubya years, and only imploded somewhere near the end. It kept on doing bad in the beginning of the Obama years, and only started improving somewhere near the end. I wouldn't be so quick to laud Trump's excuses for economic policy...
Oh never mind, the 'customers said they don't need it' was paraphrased from the following sentence in TFA: 'Based on customer inputs, most of these products are implemented as “closed systems” and therefore are expected to have a lower likelihood of exposure to these vulnerabilities.' So that makes it more likely they were actually referring to the 'SoFIA 3GR': a low-powered Atom part.
* The second reason can be summed up as "...maybe it's time to for you to buy some new gear...", which is still pretty much in Intel's favor (of course there's always going to be folks who get pissy enough about it to buy AMD CPU gear, but I'm betting that since most folks only see these fixes as a hindrance, the number of people going to AMD over this is not much more than statistical noise...)
To me, the "customers said they don't need it" part (when applied to Bloomfield and Gulftown) sounds like "the crowd who's spent hundreds of dollars for a few % speed increase would wilfully opt out of the performance-crippling patches anyway". Though I've seen a few posts here contradicting that line of reasoning.
Not so many years ago, AMD started releasing roadmaps showing that it would largely ditch x86 in favor of a high-performance ARM architecture. Mebbe ask them how that worked out for them?
To save you some googling, they did eventually release an ARM product, but it's only seeing niche use, and AMD's chips are firmly on x86 once again.
While I very much agree this is close to the core of the problem, you have to admit that current part numbering schemes are wildly ridiculous (with Intel taking the cake). The manufacturers could at least put some semblance or real-life performance in these schemes, even if their respective competitors disagree with the measure being used.
It's like the fallacy that is commonly used to defend questionable journalism: "true objectivity does not exist, so why even try?"
(One possible answer: "be that as it may, there does exist something as a 'real world', and if everyone grossly misrepresents it based on a philosophical argument, it quickly goes to heck...")
Shouldn't you be working instead of frivolously wasting your time posting on slashdot?
I LOLed at this one. Good idea (pun potential etc...), great execution. Extra credit for the deadpan delivery.
If machinery would refuse to work for people who don't correctly understand their working principles, we'd be living in some kind of stone age.
Microsoft deliberately held back patches and fixes for Windows for god knows how long because it benefited the NSA.
Possibly, but Boeing held them back even longer, and I'm guessing for reasons at least equally lame (specifically, my best guess is "fear that a patch will break proprietary hack jo^H^H^H^H^H^H^H software packages running on some of those systems").
cause they are too fat and/or haven't got the stamina or drive.
*suddenly wakes up* Wait, were we talking about picking strawberries?
Really, Zuck??? People have been decrying for years how Facebook's policies were a threat to online privacy. You cannot possibly feign to be caught off-guard by this scandal when it was structurally due for roughly a decade.
No. Blackpowder detonates while smokeless powder just burns. There's a big difference which is why basically you can't legally buy blackpowder now. Hodgdon's Pyrodex that is not nearly as good is pretty much all you can buy now.
Nope, black powder deflagrates, just as smokeless powder. I suspect (depending on where you live) that the reason why you can't buy it may simply be lack of demand. It's a relatively weak explosive that leaves a nasty residue and plenty of acrid smoke. Why would anyone want to use it when there are dozens of other fuel/oxidizer combinations (not to mention smokeless powders) that are pretty much better at everything?