A really wealthy, civilized culture would shed virtually no light upwards at night time. It's wasteful and stops you seeing the stars - which, to a civilized person, is far more important than gold-plated taps or a 28-cylinder car.
If modern economists are as what this researcher, then I will call modern economics to be full of bullshit as well.
You are quite right: modern economics is little more than a huge pile of bullshit. That's mainly because its assertions cannot be tested, so no one knows whether what economists say is true.
That being so,street-smart economists say what the rich and powerful like to hear - and get lucrative professorships, book contracts, government jobs, sponsorship, etc.
If you want to learn something about real economics, read Michael Hudson or Steve Keen. There's still a lot of truth in Adam Smith, Jean-Baptiste Say, David Ricardo, Thomas Robert Malthus, John Stuart Mill and the other original "classical" economists. (Although you have to allow for the huge differences between their world and ours. Smith, for example, pointed out how entrepreneurs could make vast profits by ignoring their own country's interests, but concluded that no one could be so vile as to do so. Sigh).
There's also a lot of truth and valuable ideas in Karl Marx, if you have the mental energy and intestinal fortitude to ignore the unjustified abuse that has been heaped on him - precisely because the rich and powerful would much prefer you not to learn about his thoughts.
... now you can have badly-written emails, full of over-used, outworn, inappropriate cliches. Exactly as the PHB would compose them.
Because that is exactly what this software, as described, actually sets out to do. Writing good English is a challenging task that demands a fair amount of knowledge and judgment. One day software will be able to do it well, but that day is still very far off.
You are quite right: the Democratic Party is free to make its own rules.
What they cannot do is to claim truthfully that their processes are "democratic" (with a small "d"). As you have just explained so clearly, it is straightforwardly plutocratic. In other words, it is money that exerts power, not the votes of individual citizens.
And of course that implies that the Democratic Party's very name is a deliberate, stinking lie.
How different from the USA's Jeffersonian democracy, where every 4 years the voters get to choose between a psychotic murderous criminal and a ridiculous uneducated imbecile.
Neither of whom would have any power or discretion if they are elected, since the real owners sit in darkness.
The processor of the PC on which I am writing this is just ten years old. Why do you believe that a ten-year-old processor should not be in use? (You should see my car: it's 18 years old. But then it's a Volvo, properly designed and robustly built).
It's not even as if you can buy processors today that are very much faster than my ancient i7-940. Their price/performance may be better, but guess what? I don't care because I *already paid for mine*. Of course, I am referring to single-core performance which is the limiting factor for most desktop applications. The i7-940 has four cores, which I feel is about right for a desktop - any software that does benefit from parallelism will see a significant speed-up.
Perhaps you are a devotee of the cult of technical progress. In which case you should take a long look at the facts, and understand that Intel microprocessors are not a very good example of such progress.
Speaking for myself, at least, I have no axe to grind with Intel employees in general. I am sure they are mostly splendid people, quite brainy, and morally admirable.
I suspect that the people responsible for this and other disasters are mainly PHBs (within the strict meaning of the term). Who listened to their Alices and Dilberts explaining the risks, and then decided to rush right ahead anyway, because it's the quarter's bottom line that counts.
'Intel says that processors with a "Stopped" status will not receive microcode updates. The reasons basically vary from "redesigning the CPU micro-architecture is impossible or not worth the effort" to "it's an old CPU" and "customers said they don't need it."'
Well, I am writing this on an Intel Core i-7 940, and I *do* need it. I paid quite a lot for this PC (although a while ago) and I don't see why I should not expect it to work reliably.
In general, moreover, it seems axiomatic that anyone who owns and is using one of those processors marked "Stopped" does need a fix.
It seems that Intel is ready to admit that it was (and may be still) unable to design and build processors that were dependably secure in normal operation.
Also that it is willing to let its customers down without compensation.
I was unaware that we were currently involved in armed combat with anyone residing within the UK. If we're involved in active combat currently in the UK, please do provide a link.
Guantanamo is a military prison, so to end up there, you must somehow get detained by our military. This isn't a discussion on if you agree with it or not, simply a statement on how you end up there. Since our military is not currently involved in combat operations within the UK, Assanage would not end up there.
It's really difficult to know where to start rebutting that. More loose ends than the average sheep.
For a start, civilized countries subject to the rule of law do not conduct "armed combat" in other countries unless they are formally at war with them. The US government has not declared war since 1941. Yet it does seem to have had a lot of "armed combat" in a lot of countries.
Incidentally, it is contrary to international law, the Nuremberg Principles, and the UN Charter to invade any country unless that country has declared war on you - or the UN Security Council has mandated the invasion. So every single one of those US "armed combat" operations has been a serious breach of international law. Indeed, they are all what the Nuremberg Court called "the supreme international crime" of unprovoked aggressive war.
Furthermore, what determines whether the US government has "armed combat" in progress in a given nation? Simply whether the President, or the Pentagon, or the State Department, or the CIA, or whoever makes those decisions nowadays, wants to. It can happen in as little as half an hour - as when President Trump decided to launch a couple of volleys of cruise missiles at Syria while he got stuck into his beautiful chocolate cake.
So as far as I am concerned, all countries in the world are potentially sites of US "armed combat" - including the UK. If anyone would like to bet their lives that no team of Americans is going to attack the Ecuadorian Embassy, for instance, to kidnap Julian Assange - as they claim to have kidnapped and murdered Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, without the courtesy of informing that country's government - I certainly wouldn't.
US presidents have taken to ordering people killed anywhere at all in the world, as the mood takes them. And even the president probably has no idea whom the CIA is killing at a given time of the day or night. After all, it's not as if the lives of foreigners mattered.
You are also not going to pay any more for your meat than you absolutely have to.
Why do people like you always assume that they have this superhuman power of knowing what others think?
As it happens I, for one, consider healthy nourishing food one of the most important and valuable items I buy. Not only am I "willing" to pay more for my meat "than I absolutely have to"; I insist on doing so.
Obviously, healthy beef, mutton and venison from well-treated, grass-fed animals kept out of doors in a pleasant natural habitat costs much more than meat from wretched beasts huddled indoors, never seeing the sun, standing all day (and night) in pools of their own manure, and fed on ghastly concoctions of artificial "feed".
Obviously, too, those unhealthy beasts are going to succumb like flies to infection unless they are stuffed with antibiotics. Whereas it's very unwise to eat any meat from an animal that has been given antibiotics even once. (Or fed on trash like soya, ground-up sea-bottom creatures, and vile polyunsaturated oils).
It may be an American trait to think of food as fungible. (So many calories, so many dollars). That is how nutrition science began in the 18th century, when the laws of thermodynamics had just been discovered and employers were keen to find the cheapest diet that would give their workers enough energy to get their tasks done. (Sugar was thought the best solution).
Now that more is known about the history of nutrition, what our ancestors ate, and the biochemistry of metabolism at the cellular level, it is obvious that food is absolutely not fungible. And only someone who is very poor indeed, or very unwise indeed, seeks the very cheapest foods.
And if some of us cared about the downvotes, we would stop using/. But it's more important to express opinions that deserve to be heard. Personal feelings don't matter so much.
Slashdot Mirror
Hopefully one day you will learn to recognize irony. Appreciating it may remain beyond you.
There are no reactors that use "waste" as fuel.
That turns out not to be the case.
http://egeneration.org/solutio...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...
Some people do seem to have great difficulty in uttering the words, "You're right". Some kind of mental block...
A really wealthy, civilized culture would shed virtually no light upwards at night time. It's wasteful and stops you seeing the stars - which, to a civilized person, is far more important than gold-plated taps or a 28-cylinder car.
If modern economists are as what this researcher, then I will call modern economics to be full of bullshit as well.
You are quite right: modern economics is little more than a huge pile of bullshit. That's mainly because its assertions cannot be tested, so no one knows whether what economists say is true.
That being so,street-smart economists say what the rich and powerful like to hear - and get lucrative professorships, book contracts, government jobs, sponsorship, etc.
If you want to learn something about real economics, read Michael Hudson or Steve Keen. There's still a lot of truth in Adam Smith, Jean-Baptiste Say, David Ricardo, Thomas Robert Malthus, John Stuart Mill and the other original "classical" economists. (Although you have to allow for the huge differences between their world and ours. Smith, for example, pointed out how entrepreneurs could make vast profits by ignoring their own country's interests, but concluded that no one could be so vile as to do so. Sigh).
There's also a lot of truth and valuable ideas in Karl Marx, if you have the mental energy and intestinal fortitude to ignore the unjustified abuse that has been heaped on him - precisely because the rich and powerful would much prefer you not to learn about his thoughts.
...Must...Hold... Back...
... now you can have badly-written emails, full of over-used, outworn, inappropriate cliches. Exactly as the PHB would compose them.
Because that is exactly what this software, as described, actually sets out to do. Writing good English is a challenging task that demands a fair amount of knowledge and judgment. One day software will be able to do it well, but that day is still very far off.
I believe you are feeding a troll.
You are quite right: the Democratic Party is free to make its own rules.
What they cannot do is to claim truthfully that their processes are "democratic" (with a small "d"). As you have just explained so clearly, it is straightforwardly plutocratic. In other words, it is money that exerts power, not the votes of individual citizens.
And of course that implies that the Democratic Party's very name is a deliberate, stinking lie.
How different from the USA's Jeffersonian democracy, where every 4 years the voters get to choose between a psychotic murderous criminal and a ridiculous uneducated imbecile.
Neither of whom would have any power or discretion if they are elected, since the real owners sit in darkness.
We already had a WWIII. It was called the Cold War.
Boy, do you have a nasty surprise coming!
The Cold War was worrying.
WWIII will *melt* you and set you on fire.
Mine was made in 2000, and it is still running fine. My garage mechanic says I'd be foolish to part with it.
Or about 15 cents (about $55 a year) if I did the arithmetic the right way round.
OK, my processor consumes 130W. Suppose I "upgrade" to one that may be slightly faster, and consumes 50W. So I save 80W.
Over a 12-hour day, that's about 1KWh. Here in England, that costs me 12p (£0.12). Less than 10 cents, or $36.5 a year.
I can live with that financial hit.
Thanks. That is a really useful, helpful reply - and I appreciate it.
The processor of the PC on which I am writing this is just ten years old. Why do you believe that a ten-year-old processor should not be in use? (You should see my car: it's 18 years old. But then it's a Volvo, properly designed and robustly built).
It's not even as if you can buy processors today that are very much faster than my ancient i7-940. Their price/performance may be better, but guess what? I don't care because I *already paid for mine*. Of course, I am referring to single-core performance which is the limiting factor for most desktop applications. The i7-940 has four cores, which I feel is about right for a desktop - any software that does benefit from parallelism will see a significant speed-up.
Perhaps you are a devotee of the cult of technical progress. In which case you should take a long look at the facts, and understand that Intel microprocessors are not a very good example of such progress.
Speaking for myself, at least, I have no axe to grind with Intel employees in general. I am sure they are mostly splendid people, quite brainy, and morally admirable.
I suspect that the people responsible for this and other disasters are mainly PHBs (within the strict meaning of the term). Who listened to their Alices and Dilberts explaining the risks, and then decided to rush right ahead anyway, because it's the quarter's bottom line that counts.
'Intel says that processors with a "Stopped" status will not receive microcode updates. The reasons basically vary from "redesigning the CPU micro-architecture is impossible or not worth the effort" to "it's an old CPU" and "customers said they don't need it."'
Well, I am writing this on an Intel Core i-7 940, and I *do* need it. I paid quite a lot for this PC (although a while ago) and I don't see why I should not expect it to work reliably.
In general, moreover, it seems axiomatic that anyone who owns and is using one of those processors marked "Stopped" does need a fix.
It seems that Intel is ready to admit that it was (and may be still) unable to design and build processors that were dependably secure in normal operation.
Also that it is willing to let its customers down without compensation.
I was unaware that we were currently involved in armed combat with anyone residing within the UK. If we're involved in active combat currently in the UK, please do provide a link.
Guantanamo is a military prison, so to end up there, you must somehow get detained by our military. This isn't a discussion on if you agree with it or not, simply a statement on how you end up there. Since our military is not currently involved in combat operations within the UK, Assanage would not end up there.
It's really difficult to know where to start rebutting that. More loose ends than the average sheep.
For a start, civilized countries subject to the rule of law do not conduct "armed combat" in other countries unless they are formally at war with them. The US government has not declared war since 1941. Yet it does seem to have had a lot of "armed combat" in a lot of countries.
Incidentally, it is contrary to international law, the Nuremberg Principles, and the UN Charter to invade any country unless that country has declared war on you - or the UN Security Council has mandated the invasion. So every single one of those US "armed combat" operations has been a serious breach of international law. Indeed, they are all what the Nuremberg Court called "the supreme international crime" of unprovoked aggressive war.
Furthermore, what determines whether the US government has "armed combat" in progress in a given nation? Simply whether the President, or the Pentagon, or the State Department, or the CIA, or whoever makes those decisions nowadays, wants to. It can happen in as little as half an hour - as when President Trump decided to launch a couple of volleys of cruise missiles at Syria while he got stuck into his beautiful chocolate cake.
So as far as I am concerned, all countries in the world are potentially sites of US "armed combat" - including the UK. If anyone would like to bet their lives that no team of Americans is going to attack the Ecuadorian Embassy, for instance, to kidnap Julian Assange - as they claim to have kidnapped and murdered Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, without the courtesy of informing that country's government - I certainly wouldn't.
US presidents have taken to ordering people killed anywhere at all in the world, as the mood takes them. And even the president probably has no idea whom the CIA is killing at a given time of the day or night. After all, it's not as if the lives of foreigners mattered.
It's nice to know the US government is getting value for the billions of taxpayers' money it has spent on "correcting perceptions" on the Internet.
"US plans to 'fight the net' revealed"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wor...
You do know that the US currently does not, nor has ever had an extradition order on him, right?
Nor, AFAIK, on any of the people languishing (if that's the word I'm looking for) in Guantanamo.
So what?
You are also not going to pay any more for your meat than you absolutely have to.
Why do people like you always assume that they have this superhuman power of knowing what others think?
As it happens I, for one, consider healthy nourishing food one of the most important and valuable items I buy. Not only am I "willing" to pay more for my meat "than I absolutely have to"; I insist on doing so.
Obviously, healthy beef, mutton and venison from well-treated, grass-fed animals kept out of doors in a pleasant natural habitat costs much more than meat from wretched beasts huddled indoors, never seeing the sun, standing all day (and night) in pools of their own manure, and fed on ghastly concoctions of artificial "feed".
Obviously, too, those unhealthy beasts are going to succumb like flies to infection unless they are stuffed with antibiotics. Whereas it's very unwise to eat any meat from an animal that has been given antibiotics even once. (Or fed on trash like soya, ground-up sea-bottom creatures, and vile polyunsaturated oils).
It may be an American trait to think of food as fungible. (So many calories, so many dollars). That is how nutrition science began in the 18th century, when the laws of thermodynamics had just been discovered and employers were keen to find the cheapest diet that would give their workers enough energy to get their tasks done. (Sugar was thought the best solution).
Now that more is known about the history of nutrition, what our ancestors ate, and the biochemistry of metabolism at the cellular level, it is obvious that food is absolutely not fungible. And only someone who is very poor indeed, or very unwise indeed, seeks the very cheapest foods.
Hell, we have scores here on ./, too.
And if some of us cared about the downvotes, we would stop using /. But it's more important to express opinions that deserve to be heard. Personal feelings don't matter so much.
So long as facebook exists it's users are in danger.
Only those who choose to be users.
There is a swamp. Don't despair; just walk round it.