To release things about Trump you have to have them. Unless you can show that they do and are choosing not to release them I don't think this is a valid argument. On top of that, our own media seems to be doing a pretty good job releasing things that show what a deplorable human being Trump is and I support that. I tend to feel that releasing facts that allow people to better understand what really happens is generally a good thing - even if you only happen to have facts on one side.
That said, I do agree that releasing subsets of the information (especially this late in the game) is concerning. For example, if only the "bad" facts or excerpts that take things out of context are being released, that is very concerning. For that reason, I wish they would release the whole set at once and be done with it; in a timely manner that allows for thorough review of all the information so that people can make an educated decision. The fact that they haven't done so and aren't saying that things are being withheld to allow for appropriate redaction (to protect innocent people or the security of people or nations) is highly problematic.
Unless you happen to be in Norway (the only European country with a higher per-hour productivity than the US) you're just spewing anecdotes. As a whole, Americans work longer AND are more productive than almost any European country - at least according to the UN. http://www.news.com.au/nationa...
I won't say that this is necessarily a good thing. I will say that your arrogance appears misplaced.
If there ever is a disaster or break-down of the type that requires people to resort to bunker living you can bet mobs of people will be quick to take their frustrations out on the nearest wealthy estate. These bunkers might stand for a long time without a concerted effort to destroy them, but they will be useless to protect their occupants for any length of time if they are attacked. That is unless those occupants also have a made the bunkers defensible and are harboring a force that can man those defenses. That, or they have hidden these bunkers so well as to ensure they would not be discovered.
When it comes to bunkers withstanding attack - they are designed to withstand an initial strike and hold off invaders until help can arrive or the occupants can escape. They don't hold out indefinitely. In situations like those described in the summary, there is no help on the way.
All that said, it seems that "how would I survive the apocalypse" is a fun mental exercise with which people with too much time and/or too much money (and maybe too much guilt) easily go overboard.
Actually, I'd say the ability to do things like this with relative anonymity was a new (and now past) situation. For most of human history around most of the world the population density was such that if you did something "notable" everyone in your town knew about it and it stuck with you forever. Sure, you could move and leave your reputation behind, but you were left to deal with being a stranger in a time when strangers were not treated favorably.
That said, I agree that it's a shame that some decisions have such an adverse impact on people's lives - especially when those decisions probably are due to a momentary lapse in judgement and really cause no or minimal harm to others. Sadly, the world has been shitty in this way for a very long time.
I think you need to go back and re-read these comments. I noted actual, documented movements with proven change reflected in the laws of this country. Such laws as the Civil Rights Act, Title 9 and on and on. These things had and continue to have tremendous impact on our society. So no, I'm not referring to "one hippy who existed in that generation." I'll note it's a generation of which I'm not part. I was born in 78.
Now let us examine your examples. Oh, that's right, you reported to a Boomer once. That makes you an expert on that generation for sure. Your other examples? Gallup polls show we are moving in the right direction - what does that even mean?
As to the impact of the Boomer generation dying out - we agree on that. Heck, I'll even agree that the Boomer generation today is stepping in a backward direction. Still, the boomers accomplished more in the 60's than all of the generations that have followed have accomplished period (from a civil movement standpoint). Let's note that whining on Facebook or posting scathing memes on Instagram doesn't seem to be an effective civil movement. In fact, I can't think of a single thing that any of those generations have accomplished. Even the small moves toward equality that have happened over the last couple of decades have been effected by Boomers. I say this as a person who is part of one of these rather unaccomplished generations.
Are you joking? The Boomers were a generation of blind trust in authority? Try reading some history once in a while. A quick look at the 60's might be a good place for you to start. Mass organization to protest the war, fight for civil rights, fight for women's rights, etc. All this done in a time when mass organization had to be organized in a highly manual fashion. In their youth, that generation put in an amazing fight to change the conditions of their country - probably far more so than any generation since.
I'll grant that, as they have become the generation with power and money, they settled down and become more comfortable with "the way things are," but I'd also say that is true of any group that happens to have the power and money.
Your anecdote about having a Boomer for a manager just doesn't jive with recorded history.
I can understand the sharp edge comment, but not the heat/noise. My MacBook Pro runs cool as a cucumber and damned near silent. It's like church mouse compared to the leaf blower that is my HP work machine. I'm not doubting you. I just wonder if there is a difference between years/models.
It's much easier to remove your phone case, pull open the media card slot, eject the card via software (assuming that is even still necessary in Android), remove the micro sd card, put the card in a card adapter, insert the card in the reader, and read the media. Then follow all the same steps in reverse. Yeah, that's way better than plugging in a cable or using wifi.
I assume SD cards are the "thing" for real photographers using real equipment, but I also see that they aren't nearly so great when applied in the phone world.
I think it's a valid point. Most of my photos, music, contacts, and other files are available in the cloud. I keep a minimum of stuff on my phone (which is an Android OS phone BTW) because there's no need for more. I keep some stuff around for those times when I'm offline, but those times are few and far between and I certainly don't require immediate access to 100+GB of data during those times.
All things being equal, more storage is better. Still, all things are never equal. I'd rather see the manufacturer spend money on a number of other things instead of additional storage (battery, screen quality, camera, amplifier, etc.).
I generally agree with this statement, but will say that it isn't always the case. A few years ago I traveled to Vancouver, B.C. with a few friends. I removed by stuff from the car and put it in the hotel room; pointing out that a car with US plates was a likely target for theft. My friends did not. When we returned to the car a few hours later it had been broken into. A number of items were stolen. One of my friends was particularly upset about losing a duffel that a family member had carried into WWII. He called the police and filled out a report. A few weeks later, his duffel was mailed to him (sans the valuable bits). Someone (I believe he said an officer, but it may have been a regular citizen) spotted it in an alley by a dumpster and brought it in.
They didn't mount an investigation or anything, but reporting the item stolen was the only thing that led to successful return of the item. As such, there is more value to it than just insurance purposes.
Average loading dock height is between 48" and 52". If you had protective side rails bringing that height down to from 24" to 30" you'd still have to have a pretty high (and steep) spot in order to hit the trailer. It does happen though - even with fairly tall trailers. I've seen trucks bottom out on the transition from steep hill to level cross street in Downtown Seattle. Trucks would probably have to consider these things in the design of their routes (like they do bridge heights, weight restrictions, and flammable materials bans).
This assumes that those that aren't pursuing such an education are doing so for the sake of "mocking" higher learning. I think the question is often one of accessibility - one that will be exacerbated by the fact that tuitions are bound to increase as demand for spots at accredited institutions skyrockets. Yes, there are loans and grants available, but accessibility is about more than just money (though money is frequently a large factor).
I believe there are plenty of smart people in this country - more than enough to meet the demand. I agree that there aren't enough educated people. Of course, it's difficult (and costly) to deal with getting the smart people that education. It's easier to import smart people whose parents are willing to foot the bill. The problem is that this further cements the class divide and effectively locks a large segment of the population out of any real chance for success. That never seems to turn out well in the long run.
I'm of the belief that the market will eventually balance things out (other countries will build incentives to keep students from leaving), but what to do about what happens in the interim...do you even allow the situation that creates the interim...those are the questions with which people will always struggle.
Because Timothy McVeigh was acting on a political basis - not a religious one. The fact that Orlando was an act committed against the LGBTQ community causes many to think of it as a crime with a religious basis (as anti-LGBTQ behavior is codified in many religious texts). Since this terrorist associated with Islam it is reasonable (though not necessarily accurate) to make the connection that his association with Islam is relevant to the event.
FWIW, when a Christian commits a terrorist act and their religion is relevant (say abortion bombings) they almost always referred to as Fundamentalist Christian terrorists.
I know how musicians can survive - the same way they did for thousands of years prior to the advent of recording - it's called performing. Yup, it requires on-going work so it's probably a bummer for some of the artist types. Still, it's how the vast majority of the world earns their keep. I mean, I'd love to do something for my company and then have it pay me for that thing for the rest of my life (and then continue to do so for my estate), but that just isn't how most of the world works. Lame.
While no fan of ISPs, I'll wager that 100% of the problem lies with the City of Seattle and its draconian laws regarding new infrastructure. Run some searches on why Google chose not to run fiber in Seattle (it was in the first wave of cities they looked at). You'll see just how much of an issue it is just to do something simple like install a new switch in a neighborhood. Seattle's slogan should be: "Whatever it takes to remove the 'progress' from 'Progressive'."
Probably because most men couldn't care less if their significant other watches "The Shield" or "Star Trek" with them. In fact, many would prefer to watch it alone. As such, fewer women are exposed to male targeted shows. On the other hand (and this is, for sure, just an anecdote) it seems like every straight guy in my office is forced to watch "The Bachelor" with their S.O. every week as part of their "quality time" together. Since they're exposed, it seems reasonable that they might also rate the show.
I love the rage here. While not a proponent of this tactic (it seems self defeating), I don't really think it makes Amazon inherently evil. I mean, at least they let you purchase most things. They could be like Costco or Sams club and not let you purchase anything without a membership (and a special credit card should you wish to use that for your purchase).
I hope all of you that are so up in arms spend as much time being made at warehouse clubs.
The ICIJ is part of the Center for Public Integrity. Major donors for CPI are The Ford Foundation, The John D and Catherine T MacArthur Foundation, The Pew Charitable Trusts, and others. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Think about who left the original endowments to these organizations - the original industry barons (and children of those barons) of the U.S. Then think about the likelihood that these reports will expose many old-money US citizens.
I suspect we'll see a flood of info on wrong-doing from leaders of non-Western nations. I suspect we'll see a few unfortunate sacrificial lambs from Western nations, but that's all.
If you have a family it's even more cost effective. My kids get excited to see certain movies and it's fun to take them now and then. When I factor in the ticket price + snacks it's generally more than $50 to see a movie (tickets are around $10 each here). If I don't take my kids then I have the cost of a sitter to include in my movie experience.
The convenience factor makes it even nicer. At home I can provide cheaper and healthier snacks. I can also pause the movie for bathroom breaks (an inevitability with younger kids) and such. On top of this, my kids can be their natural, "bouncy" selves without me worrying that they are disturbing other patrons.
Exactly - the lack of quality today is just a different sort than it was yesterday.
Yesterday: The barrier to entry in news was HUGE. Press barons like William Randolph Hearst had tremendous influence on the public perception of things because they owned all of the news outlets. Articles were highly-polished, but they consisted almost solely of what the oligarchy wanted the public to know. Small press outlets attempted to operate, but were often stomped out by the press barons.
Today: The barrier to entry is tiny. I can start a blog, post of Facebook, etc. with little or not cost to myself. Opinions are diverse and readily available. On the downside, the low barrier to entry means anyone can put "news" out there. Articles lack the polish (and budget) of yesteryear and opinions/fiction makes it into "news" unchecked. This can make it difficult for readers to separate fact from fiction.
Dude, the leadership in the US government has been pulling this shit for years. Think about it. Which government do you think is more likely to have come up with underhanded tactics first? Probably not Canada.
Analysts in many areas have been calling for a different approach for a long time: Concentrate on the areas in which you are successful - cull the rest. Yahoo is strong in email, fantasy sports, news aggregation, and a number of other things. Concentrating on these key areas would have made for a smaller, more focused enterprise.
Instead, Yahoo did the exact opposite - go out and buy a bunch of other companies and increase scope to include a bunch of new areas - further diluting itself.
Yahoo wanted to be some giant tech innovator instead of a focused and established service provider. It's pretty clear that investors are convinced the former is never going to happen, but the latter could still add value
Slashdot Mirror
To release things about Trump you have to have them. Unless you can show that they do and are choosing not to release them I don't think this is a valid argument. On top of that, our own media seems to be doing a pretty good job releasing things that show what a deplorable human being Trump is and I support that. I tend to feel that releasing facts that allow people to better understand what really happens is generally a good thing - even if you only happen to have facts on one side.
That said, I do agree that releasing subsets of the information (especially this late in the game) is concerning. For example, if only the "bad" facts or excerpts that take things out of context are being released, that is very concerning. For that reason, I wish they would release the whole set at once and be done with it; in a timely manner that allows for thorough review of all the information so that people can make an educated decision. The fact that they haven't done so and aren't saying that things are being withheld to allow for appropriate redaction (to protect innocent people or the security of people or nations) is highly problematic.
Unless you happen to be in Norway (the only European country with a higher per-hour productivity than the US) you're just spewing anecdotes. As a whole, Americans work longer AND are more productive than almost any European country - at least according to the UN. http://www.news.com.au/nationa...
I won't say that this is necessarily a good thing. I will say that your arrogance appears misplaced.
If there ever is a disaster or break-down of the type that requires people to resort to bunker living you can bet mobs of people will be quick to take their frustrations out on the nearest wealthy estate. These bunkers might stand for a long time without a concerted effort to destroy them, but they will be useless to protect their occupants for any length of time if they are attacked. That is unless those occupants also have a made the bunkers defensible and are harboring a force that can man those defenses. That, or they have hidden these bunkers so well as to ensure they would not be discovered.
When it comes to bunkers withstanding attack - they are designed to withstand an initial strike and hold off invaders until help can arrive or the occupants can escape. They don't hold out indefinitely. In situations like those described in the summary, there is no help on the way.
All that said, it seems that "how would I survive the apocalypse" is a fun mental exercise with which people with too much time and/or too much money (and maybe too much guilt) easily go overboard.
Actually, I'd say the ability to do things like this with relative anonymity was a new (and now past) situation. For most of human history around most of the world the population density was such that if you did something "notable" everyone in your town knew about it and it stuck with you forever. Sure, you could move and leave your reputation behind, but you were left to deal with being a stranger in a time when strangers were not treated favorably.
That said, I agree that it's a shame that some decisions have such an adverse impact on people's lives - especially when those decisions probably are due to a momentary lapse in judgement and really cause no or minimal harm to others. Sadly, the world has been shitty in this way for a very long time.
I think you need to go back and re-read these comments. I noted actual, documented movements with proven change reflected in the laws of this country. Such laws as the Civil Rights Act, Title 9 and on and on. These things had and continue to have tremendous impact on our society. So no, I'm not referring to "one hippy who existed in that generation." I'll note it's a generation of which I'm not part. I was born in 78.
Now let us examine your examples. Oh, that's right, you reported to a Boomer once. That makes you an expert on that generation for sure. Your other examples? Gallup polls show we are moving in the right direction - what does that even mean?
As to the impact of the Boomer generation dying out - we agree on that. Heck, I'll even agree that the Boomer generation today is stepping in a backward direction. Still, the boomers accomplished more in the 60's than all of the generations that have followed have accomplished period (from a civil movement standpoint). Let's note that whining on Facebook or posting scathing memes on Instagram doesn't seem to be an effective civil movement. In fact, I can't think of a single thing that any of those generations have accomplished. Even the small moves toward equality that have happened over the last couple of decades have been effected by Boomers. I say this as a person who is part of one of these rather unaccomplished generations.
Are you joking? The Boomers were a generation of blind trust in authority? Try reading some history once in a while. A quick look at the 60's might be a good place for you to start. Mass organization to protest the war, fight for civil rights, fight for women's rights, etc. All this done in a time when mass organization had to be organized in a highly manual fashion. In their youth, that generation put in an amazing fight to change the conditions of their country - probably far more so than any generation since.
I'll grant that, as they have become the generation with power and money, they settled down and become more comfortable with "the way things are," but I'd also say that is true of any group that happens to have the power and money.
Your anecdote about having a Boomer for a manager just doesn't jive with recorded history.
I can understand the sharp edge comment, but not the heat/noise. My MacBook Pro runs cool as a cucumber and damned near silent. It's like church mouse compared to the leaf blower that is my HP work machine. I'm not doubting you. I just wonder if there is a difference between years/models.
It's much easier to remove your phone case, pull open the media card slot, eject the card via software (assuming that is even still necessary in Android), remove the micro sd card, put the card in a card adapter, insert the card in the reader, and read the media. Then follow all the same steps in reverse. Yeah, that's way better than plugging in a cable or using wifi.
I assume SD cards are the "thing" for real photographers using real equipment, but I also see that they aren't nearly so great when applied in the phone world.
I think it's a valid point. Most of my photos, music, contacts, and other files are available in the cloud. I keep a minimum of stuff on my phone (which is an Android OS phone BTW) because there's no need for more. I keep some stuff around for those times when I'm offline, but those times are few and far between and I certainly don't require immediate access to 100+GB of data during those times.
All things being equal, more storage is better. Still, all things are never equal. I'd rather see the manufacturer spend money on a number of other things instead of additional storage (battery, screen quality, camera, amplifier, etc.).
I generally agree with this statement, but will say that it isn't always the case. A few years ago I traveled to Vancouver, B.C. with a few friends. I removed by stuff from the car and put it in the hotel room; pointing out that a car with US plates was a likely target for theft. My friends did not. When we returned to the car a few hours later it had been broken into. A number of items were stolen. One of my friends was particularly upset about losing a duffel that a family member had carried into WWII. He called the police and filled out a report. A few weeks later, his duffel was mailed to him (sans the valuable bits). Someone (I believe he said an officer, but it may have been a regular citizen) spotted it in an alley by a dumpster and brought it in.
They didn't mount an investigation or anything, but reporting the item stolen was the only thing that led to successful return of the item. As such, there is more value to it than just insurance purposes.
Average loading dock height is between 48" and 52". If you had protective side rails bringing that height down to from 24" to 30" you'd still have to have a pretty high (and steep) spot in order to hit the trailer. It does happen though - even with fairly tall trailers. I've seen trucks bottom out on the transition from steep hill to level cross street in Downtown Seattle. Trucks would probably have to consider these things in the design of their routes (like they do bridge heights, weight restrictions, and flammable materials bans).
This assumes that those that aren't pursuing such an education are doing so for the sake of "mocking" higher learning. I think the question is often one of accessibility - one that will be exacerbated by the fact that tuitions are bound to increase as demand for spots at accredited institutions skyrockets. Yes, there are loans and grants available, but accessibility is about more than just money (though money is frequently a large factor).
I believe there are plenty of smart people in this country - more than enough to meet the demand. I agree that there aren't enough educated people. Of course, it's difficult (and costly) to deal with getting the smart people that education. It's easier to import smart people whose parents are willing to foot the bill. The problem is that this further cements the class divide and effectively locks a large segment of the population out of any real chance for success. That never seems to turn out well in the long run.
I'm of the belief that the market will eventually balance things out (other countries will build incentives to keep students from leaving), but what to do about what happens in the interim...do you even allow the situation that creates the interim...those are the questions with which people will always struggle.
Because Timothy McVeigh was acting on a political basis - not a religious one. The fact that Orlando was an act committed against the LGBTQ community causes many to think of it as a crime with a religious basis (as anti-LGBTQ behavior is codified in many religious texts). Since this terrorist associated with Islam it is reasonable (though not necessarily accurate) to make the connection that his association with Islam is relevant to the event.
FWIW, when a Christian commits a terrorist act and their religion is relevant (say abortion bombings) they almost always referred to as Fundamentalist Christian terrorists.
Then it would be like owning an Android phone with the Google location services turned on (and I'll say that I am in this group).
I know how musicians can survive - the same way they did for thousands of years prior to the advent of recording - it's called performing. Yup, it requires on-going work so it's probably a bummer for some of the artist types. Still, it's how the vast majority of the world earns their keep. I mean, I'd love to do something for my company and then have it pay me for that thing for the rest of my life (and then continue to do so for my estate), but that just isn't how most of the world works. Lame.
While no fan of ISPs, I'll wager that 100% of the problem lies with the City of Seattle and its draconian laws regarding new infrastructure. Run some searches on why Google chose not to run fiber in Seattle (it was in the first wave of cities they looked at). You'll see just how much of an issue it is just to do something simple like install a new switch in a neighborhood. Seattle's slogan should be: "Whatever it takes to remove the 'progress' from 'Progressive'."
Probably because most men couldn't care less if their significant other watches "The Shield" or "Star Trek" with them. In fact, many would prefer to watch it alone. As such, fewer women are exposed to male targeted shows. On the other hand (and this is, for sure, just an anecdote) it seems like every straight guy in my office is forced to watch "The Bachelor" with their S.O. every week as part of their "quality time" together. Since they're exposed, it seems reasonable that they might also rate the show.
And probably should never have joined.
I love the rage here. While not a proponent of this tactic (it seems self defeating), I don't really think it makes Amazon inherently evil. I mean, at least they let you purchase most things. They could be like Costco or Sams club and not let you purchase anything without a membership (and a special credit card should you wish to use that for your purchase).
I hope all of you that are so up in arms spend as much time being made at warehouse clubs.
Yeah - when you're not married the two aren't mutually exclusive.
The ICIJ is part of the Center for Public Integrity. Major donors for CPI are The Ford Foundation, The John D and Catherine T MacArthur Foundation, The Pew Charitable Trusts, and others. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Think about who left the original endowments to these organizations - the original industry barons (and children of those barons) of the U.S. Then think about the likelihood that these reports will expose many old-money US citizens.
I suspect we'll see a flood of info on wrong-doing from leaders of non-Western nations. I suspect we'll see a few unfortunate sacrificial lambs from Western nations, but that's all.
If you have a family it's even more cost effective. My kids get excited to see certain movies and it's fun to take them now and then. When I factor in the ticket price + snacks it's generally more than $50 to see a movie (tickets are around $10 each here). If I don't take my kids then I have the cost of a sitter to include in my movie experience.
The convenience factor makes it even nicer. At home I can provide cheaper and healthier snacks. I can also pause the movie for bathroom breaks (an inevitability with younger kids) and such. On top of this, my kids can be their natural, "bouncy" selves without me worrying that they are disturbing other patrons.
I'm sure I'd do this now and then.
Exactly - the lack of quality today is just a different sort than it was yesterday.
Yesterday: The barrier to entry in news was HUGE. Press barons like William Randolph Hearst had tremendous influence on the public perception of things because they owned all of the news outlets. Articles were highly-polished, but they consisted almost solely of what the oligarchy wanted the public to know. Small press outlets attempted to operate, but were often stomped out by the press barons.
Today: The barrier to entry is tiny. I can start a blog, post of Facebook, etc. with little or not cost to myself. Opinions are diverse and readily available. On the downside, the low barrier to entry means anyone can put "news" out there. Articles lack the polish (and budget) of yesteryear and opinions/fiction makes it into "news" unchecked. This can make it difficult for readers to separate fact from fiction.
Dude, the leadership in the US government has been pulling this shit for years. Think about it. Which government do you think is more likely to have come up with underhanded tactics first? Probably not Canada.
Analysts in many areas have been calling for a different approach for a long time: Concentrate on the areas in which you are successful - cull the rest. Yahoo is strong in email, fantasy sports, news aggregation, and a number of other things. Concentrating on these key areas would have made for a smaller, more focused enterprise.
Instead, Yahoo did the exact opposite - go out and buy a bunch of other companies and increase scope to include a bunch of new areas - further diluting itself.
Yahoo wanted to be some giant tech innovator instead of a focused and established service provider. It's pretty clear that investors are convinced the former is never going to happen, but the latter could still add value