He's going to realise why religions prefer access to children. Adults are a damn sight harder to bullshit.
Adults may be harder but not by a lot. One merely has to look at the number of born again christians to realize how susceptible adults are to religious bullshit. People desperately want to feel a sense of belonging to a community and to not have to say "I don't know". Churches (read cults) are really good at providing that and helping them feel good about it. The fact that it is based on a story that is objectively nonsense and made up doesn't seem to matter to a great many people. They'll believe anything you tell them as long as they get that good feeling. It's not so different from getting a high from drugs. Missionaries exist because they are effective. They don't have to convince everyone of their bullshit to be a success. They just have to grow the numbers of the faithful.
"I want to learn and get a feeling for what are the things that are driving a generation of people who are in many ways shaping the world as we know it. He glanced around the room. "Really deep down, I see a lot of people looking for some sort of connectivity." That's certainly true -- though I get the sense for delegates here that means good wi-fi, rather than a strong sense of faith. So Bishop Tighe's mission is to get this industry to find real value in both.
Translation: He's proselytizing or laying the groundwork to do so.
If tech companies continue to make it difficult/impossible for law enforcement to do basic law enforcement-type things merely for the sake of making extreme, unnecessary obfuscation of your pointless texts a marketing slogan, this is where things will wind up.
Perhaps but I doubt it. See companies like Apple and Google have the money to pay for lobbying, bribes, and thanks to a recent decision by our Supreme Court unlimited campaign contributions. Companies can and do buy politicians.
Only a clueless idiot things that encrypting my communications is "unnecessary". I don't actually need to have done something wrong for my communications to be used against me. Innocent remarks can be incredibly easy to misconstrue, intentionally or unintentionally. Just because I have nothing to hide doesn't mean I have nothing to fear.
And with so many idiots out there already shitting themselves over Trump being Super Ultra TurboHitler, there's no incentive to stop the fear mongering any time soon.
Don't have to stop it. Just have to fight fire with fire. There is no way to have a secure internet without encryption where only the "good guys" (ahem...) have access to your dirty little secrets. Just point out all the bad things that will happen without encryption and companies (like Apple) will hire all sorts of flesh eating lobbyists and lawyers effectively on your behalf to keep their cash flow going. The best defense against security theater FUD might turn out to be more FUD pointed in the opposite direction.
There also is that pesky little problems of the 4th and 5th amendments. Not the greatest of comfort in the short run but in the long run they do tend to keep the government stooges at bay over sufficiently long time periods.
it may not stop them if they decide you are a high-value target. But it stops mass surveillance dragnets in their tracks.
And that's really what privacy laws are supposed to be about. If the government has a legitimate good faith reason to be investigating someone they have the tools to do this and to a point should have reasonable rights to investigate. Broad sweeping surveillance however should not provide them the same degree of resolution on any given individual. Law enforcement and defense surveillance should have to jump through some hoops and do some actual work to target any individual. That's the entire point of the 4th Amendment we well as several others. An investigation should be harder than looking up a database record because government's have shown they cannot resist abusing such power when made available to them. The notion that encryption will somehow make it impossible for them to do their job just hasn't been shown to be true in reality.
In practical terms however the reason encryption works isn't a moral one. It works because it keeps the economic cost for police to watch a given individual remains non-trivial so that they have to pick and choose who is worth bothering to watch. It used to be that getting the records and communications required a significant expenditure of resources. With email, modern phone systems, and the internet some of that became much easier. So much easier that it causes all sorts of problems with protecting civil liberties. Encryption balances things back out. They can still come after you if they need to but it has to rise to a certain level of suspicion to make it worth their while.
Now the powers to be really have an incentive to outlaw encryption. Great!
There used to be a ban on exporting encryption software. It was classified as a munition. Of course this preposterous classification relied on the absurd assumption that nobody outside the US could develop software to do useful encryption or that they would be unwilling to distribute it if they did. Eventually the ban was lifted during the 1990s because it was hurting US companies and because it was basically an unenforceable anachronism once the internet became a thing.
That's not to say that the US (or other countries) couldn't make some idiotic laws along the lines of making use of encryption without permission a crime. Sort of the XKCD wrench approach to the problem.
I'm curious to know how they plan to transport them. It seems to me the most logical way would be by boat but could they get there quickly enough?
A container ship can cross the pacific in 2-4 weeks so that's not a big deal. Lead time would be a serious problem though for his 100 day boast. Presume it takes 20 days to transport the batteries and maybe another 30-40 to build them all (probably optimistic), they would be left with maybe a month to design, install and test the whole thing. Not saying it would be impossible but it would be a tight squeeze most likely unless he has already built the batteries and designed the system. He could probably get it up and running quickly but perhaps not at full capacity.
The password rules wouldn't be quite so annoying if they could agree on a common set of rules. Website A wants caps, numbers and no special characters. Website B wants special characters, caps and numbers. This means more passwords, more permutations of passwords and the end result is worse security because of all the problems with forgetting passwords. I don't know that there is an easy solution but a start would be to have the same password rules everywhere whenever possible and they should follow whatever the currently acknowledged evidence based best practices are. (balancing usability with security of course)
Making the problem worse is every f***ing website wanting you to make an account with them even when doing so is of no benefit to me. Guest checkout should ALWAYS be an option. I'm not going to become a repeat customer because you make me create an account. I'll become a repeat customer because your service and prices rock and you provide something I need.
Net neutrality is just a way to keep the ISPs honest if you insist on letting them keep their local cable/phone monopolies. If you get rid of the monopolies and allow competition, then you don't need to enforce net neutrality
You will never get competition in last mile delivery because the economics of it make it impractical.
What needs to happen is that the companies providing the pipe should have an arms length relationship with any content providers. Comcast should be able to provide me a pipe to my house or to provide me content over that pipe but not both. Comcast cannot both own NBC and transmit its content over Comcast data lines. Given that it is economically impractical to have more than 1-2 data lines coming into any given dwelling it is unlikely that the local phone/cable monopolies will ever disappear. For economic reasons they are a natural monopoly because competition actually increases costs plus building and maintaining such a network is prohibitively expensive to new market entrants. So the dividing line should be pipe or content. Pick one and never cross that line. Collusion between pipe providers and content providers should be explicitly illegal and prosecutable under anti-trust laws.
Had it and some of it was respectable but, at least from the places I had it, not even close to the quality of BBQ brisket I can get in the US nor as good as the brisket deli meats (pastrami & corned beef esp) I can get in NYC or a few other select places south of the border. I'm sure there are some places the do Montreal Smoked Meat extremely well but what I've had was merely decent at best. Bear in mind that when I say I haven't had great brisket in Canada you have to understand that I've had some AMAZING brisket in the US from some of the best Texas, Caroline and Kansas City BBQ places as well as some of the best deli's in the US. I very much doubt there is anybody in the world who does brisket better than the best BBQ pit masters or the best delis in the USA. If you know of a great brisket restaurant in Canada I'd love to give it a try.
For those not familiar, Montreal Smoked Meat is sort of a cousin of pastrami or corned beef that is then smoked and steamed. It's usually more of a deli meat than BBQ though it can share features of each. It's can be very solid eats and worth trying if you can find a good restaurant that serves it. If you've had Montreal steak seasoning then you have a vague appreciation of the flavors we are talking about because it is based on Montreal Smoked Meat.
You need to get out more (I'm an entire continent away and I know all about Montreal Smoked Meat).
I have worked in Canada, vacationed there several times a year for many years, and was married in Canada. I've been everywhere from British Columbia and Alberta to Ontario and hope to get to the east coast soon. I currently live less than 40 miles from the Canadian border. Unless you are Canadian I'm reasonably confident I'm more familiar with Canada then you are.
Because it makes a bunch of racist, idiot conservatives think they are solving an actual problem. People coming here to work - the horror... Ironically they could keep all the brown skinned people out much more effectively by helping Mexico boost their economy. They come here because there aren't jobs back home. What we should worry about is if the immigrants stop wanting to come here.
Done right, it is the same protection, with a lot less of an environmental impact.
Conservatives don't generally give much a shit about environmental impact. They think clean air is nothing more than a liberal plot to cost them their jobs.
Mexico's economy is booming,
Mexico's economy is something of a mixed bag and is significantly dependent on oil prices. It's a good sized economy but has rather drastic inequality between rich and poor. Those poor are the ones coming to the US because of limited opportunities back home.
Might even be wise to set up a Schengen Agreement allowing for US/Canada/Mexico free travel.
WAY too much racism and paranoia in the USA for that to be realistic though I agree it isn't a bad idea. There really isn't much point in having a guarded border between the US and Canada either.
Seems more like Turmp is interested in 'safety' to the detriment of literally everything else.
Trump has no interest in actual safety. He has a strong interest in "security" theater. Big difference between the two. One keeps us safe and the other keeps him elected. He cares about the later. Putting a wall on the US/Mexico border will do almost nothing for safety but it will do a lot to make paranoid conservatives happy.
The trick is usually to get the chopped smoked brisket on top, but really what you need to do to really enjoy poutine is get really, really drunk first.
I've never had decent smoked brisket in Canada ever. Heck, it's hard to get it north of the Mason-Dixon line in the USA, though here and there you can find a decent BBQ joint up north. Maybe someone in Canada somewhere knows how to work a smoker but it's certainly not common in the bits I've been to.
If a food requires inebriation to enjoy I think I'll pass. Taco Bell tastes good when drunk too I'm told but it's still shitty food.
Obama seemed to consider conservatives and Christians as a greater threat than radical Muslims.
Here in the USA they ARE a greater threat so that would be actually objectively true to most of us. Radical Muslims are rather rare here in the USA but crazy christians and paranoid delusional conservatives are a dime-a-dozen. I am FAR more likely to be murdered by a christian and/or a conservative than a muslim of any stripe. Conservatives and christians also have the ability to threaten not just my physical well being but also my civil rights thanks to their numbers, proximity and control of significant parts of our government.
I'm not worried about ISIS. I'm worried about the Tea Party and Trump and the religious right and the rest of them because they are a FAR greater threat to me and my family than any member of the islamic faith will likely ever be.
You damn well can't just say whatever you want, because at best it can cost people money. Worst case, it can cost people their lives.
You say that as if you think Trump actually gives a shit about costing other people money or their lives. I think Trump loves the fact that he can move markets with nothing more than a fact free tweet from the toilet.
Well, of course, you can't eat Fries without Ketchup, can you ?
Of course you can. And you should. Not that a little ketchup is bad but if you wouldn't eat the fries plain with just some salt then they are badly made fries. Why eat something you have to disguise the taste of? I never understood people who pile so many condiments on that they can no longer taste the food they are eating. Condiments should be used in modest amounts to enhance the flavor, not to be the flavor. A dab of ketchup is fine but if ketchup is all you can taste why bother with the fries? Ketchup just isn't THAT tasty.
Personally I almost never eat ketchup with fries. I just seek out good quality fries. Sometimes I dip them in aioli or cheese or tartar sauce (fish & chips!) or something else but I seriously can't remember the last time I busted out the ketchup bottle to dip something in - fries or otherwise.
And yet, those soils are NOTHING EVEN REMOTELY LIKE Mars soil. Seriously people, we aren't going to grow anything on Mars.
We aren't going to grow anything on Mars anytime soon. FTFY. You forgot the word soon. If we actually send manned missions to Mars someday then it is very likely (nearly certain) that we would attempt to grow something there if for no other reason than scientific curiosity. Might not be something edible but I'm sure we'd try to grow some form of plant life. Whether that effort proves productive in any way is a different discussion.
Sure, straight mayo works on fries though that's rather boring just like ketchup is boring. Tartar sauce and aoili are great. So are all kinds of salad dressings. Honey mustard is tasty. BBQ sauce works. Melted cheese is great too. Honestly though if you wouldn't eat the fries plain (just salt) without dipping them in something first then they are crap fries not worthy of consumption. Whatever you are dipping fries into should make already good fries better. Same with hot dogs or other sausages - if you won't eat them plain then eat something else. Condiments should enhance the flavor not be the flavor. If all you want to taste is the condiment then why not just eat the condiment and save the calories for something better?
Poutine sauce is what belongs there.
"Poutine sauce"? The word you are looking for is gravy because that's what it is. Poutine is fine but in my opinion highly overrated. I've spent loads of time in Canada and I've seldom had poutine that was actually good. Mostly it's a cheap crappy thin gravy with some not very tasty cheese curd thrown in on top of some badly done fries. It's a dish that is WAY more popular than the taste should justify. I'm sure it can be done well but that's not what is usually sold.
The worldwide warehouse and logistics robot unit shipments will increase from 40,000 robots in 2016 to 620,000 robots annually by 2021, according to highly reliable numbers from Tractica
Translation:
An uncorroborated study from a company nobody has ever heard but which sells market "analysis" of the robotics industry (as well as several other trendy verticals) makes outlandish claim without providing any supporting evidence.
"Highly reliable numbers"? Why should we take it as given that they are highly reliable? Because they said so?
You can see by how many foreign auto-makers chose to put assembly plants in the U.S. that it can make good financial sense.
Modern auto assembly plants are highly automated and don't employ massive numbers of people anymore. Foreign automakers build plants in the US for several reasons but two are particularly important. 1) They are building a car for sale primarily in that market and have no plans to export it and 2) as a hedge against currency fluctuations. If you build a plant in Japan and ship the cars to the US you run into the problem of currency risk. If the Yen were to rise against the Dollar (1 Yen buys more Dollars) then the price of your cars just went up because each dollar can buy fewer cars made in Japan. But if you make the car in the US you don't have that problem because there is no currency conversion. Currency fluctuations can work in your favor too but it's a big risk and the car companies cannot control the relative values of currencies. This is exactly why China has so much US debt. They have kept their currency intentionally weak because it makes their exports more competitive. If the Yuan were to rise against the Dollar significantly it would make everything made in China more expensive.
But there's a whole lot of more advanced manufacturing of physically large objects that makes sense to do in America.
Exactly. Germany does this rather well and believe it or not so does the US. It's capital intensive manufacturing. Chasing poorly paying labor intensive manufacturing jobs is a fools errand.
I have the same question to many people who bitch and moan about their jobs going to China... 10, 15 years ago... and still live in the same economically depressed towns without learning anything during all that time.
Well said. There is a famous saying that if you aren't getting better you are getting worse. Just because you stand still doesn't mean anyone else will.
We are past manufacturing.
Not remotely. We just are past labor intensive manufacturing and we are only past that in the US because our cost of labor is so high relative to other parts of the world. We still do capital intensive manufacturing to the tune of about $3 Trillion per year. The US manufacturing sector would be one of the ten largest economies in the world by itself. We don't make happy meal toys. We make jumbo jets and cars and earth movers and semiconductors and drugs and lots of other complicated stuff that requires more than a high school diploma to design and make. The only country with a larger manufacturing sector is China and not by much. Per-capita theirs is much smaller. Manufacturing in the US is alive and well. It just isn't the same system your father and grandfather grew up it.
We are in a post-industrial setup and no amount of barriers would have prevented globalization.
That is a nonsensical statement. There is nothing "post-industrial" about our economy. You are correct about globalization being more or less inevitable but it's not because we are "post-industrial" anything. It's because communication and transportation and logistics systems and infrastructure improved so much that it made it economically inevitable. We can literally travel halfway around the world in a single day. We can talk in real time to people on other continents. We have ships that are literally the size of small towns and aircraft that are bigger than the ships that Columbus used to cross the Atlantic. We have a world wide network of information with all of humanity's knowledge. It's cheaper to build a car and ship it across oceans in some cases than to build it next door.
Once you send out the manufacturing jobs, once you send out the service jobs, once you send out the research jobs, what's left?
A reversion to the mean. The US has some of the highest wages in the world. That's great but if we want to keep it that way we need to be doing things that are hard to replicate outside the US. That means investing in research and education and technology and infrastructure and supply chains. All things that have payoffs which are measured in decades. There is nothing special about the US that entitles workers here to abnormally high wages when the work can be done adequately well in locations with lower labor costs. If we want higher than average wages then we need to do things that will get higher than average results.
That's why a lot of the rhetoric coming from Washington about "bringing back manufacturing jobs" is just nonsense. Unless you want to accompany it with a reduction in wages to significantly lower amounts than we currently expect. Those jobs left because they were labor intensive and labor costs were substantially lower elsewhere. If the job can be done in China for $2/hour, you aren't going to compete on labor intensive manufacturing with wages of $15/hour or more. No amount of political promises will change that fact. Those jobs aren't coming back unless a drastic drop in wages comes with them. I'm pretty sure we don't actually want that.
1) Many Apple customers don't care about a headphone jack
Continued strong Apple stales of iPhones is proof that this is almost certainly true.
2) Enough Apple customers are willing to shell out extra for the BT earbuds.
There seems to be ample evidence that this is true as well. Plus I'm sure many are just fine with the earbuds that come with their phone. Most people want something that works and aren't super fussy about the exact connector used to do it. As long as it doesn't get in their way they won't care.
Maybe the bulk of the people that care enough about a headphone jack that it sways their purchasing decision wouldn't buy an Apple product anyway.
You are probably mostly talking about the loud tech geeks and android fanbois who seem to think that any company who doesn't provide a product that is exactly tailored to their particular needs/tastes is evil incarnate and should die in a fire.
Personally I don't give a shit about the 3.5mm jack for or against. I barely used it when my phone had one. For the rare occasion when I might need one I'm fine with an adapter. I connect to my car and my headphones via bluetooth and to my home stereo via wifi. Fumbling with wires that invariably are tangled is annoying and this is coming from someone who makes their living manufacturing wire harnesses! I don't deny that the 3.5mm jack was useful to many people but I also don't think it is as mission critical as many made it out to be. The lack of one hasn't affected me one tiny little bit.
So PC companies held out and provided ports and functionality until they were absolutely sure no one wanted them?
No, they sold them to millions of customers who didn't actually need or want them for years after it was clear nobody needed or wanted them. All those legacy ports/devices did was add cost for 99%+ of customers. For the few who still needed floppy disks or 25pin Dsub serial ports there always has been the option to add them via expansions slots or USB adapters.
Honestly the 3.5 inch floppy disk should have died in a fire years before it actually did.
Slashdot Mirror
It isn't the kids that donate millions to various religious groups or pay for mega churches.
Kids grow up and it's easier to brainwash them if you've already gotten to their parents. Organized religions know how to play the long game.
He's going to realise why religions prefer access to children. Adults are a damn sight harder to bullshit.
Adults may be harder but not by a lot. One merely has to look at the number of born again christians to realize how susceptible adults are to religious bullshit. People desperately want to feel a sense of belonging to a community and to not have to say "I don't know". Churches (read cults) are really good at providing that and helping them feel good about it. The fact that it is based on a story that is objectively nonsense and made up doesn't seem to matter to a great many people. They'll believe anything you tell them as long as they get that good feeling. It's not so different from getting a high from drugs. Missionaries exist because they are effective. They don't have to convince everyone of their bullshit to be a success. They just have to grow the numbers of the faithful.
"I want to learn and get a feeling for what are the things that are driving a generation of people who are in many ways shaping the world as we know it. He glanced around the room. "Really deep down, I see a lot of people looking for some sort of connectivity." That's certainly true -- though I get the sense for delegates here that means good wi-fi, rather than a strong sense of faith. So Bishop Tighe's mission is to get this industry to find real value in both.
Translation: He's proselytizing or laying the groundwork to do so.
If tech companies continue to make it difficult/impossible for law enforcement to do basic law enforcement-type things merely for the sake of making extreme, unnecessary obfuscation of your pointless texts a marketing slogan, this is where things will wind up.
Perhaps but I doubt it. See companies like Apple and Google have the money to pay for lobbying, bribes, and thanks to a recent decision by our Supreme Court unlimited campaign contributions. Companies can and do buy politicians.
Only a clueless idiot things that encrypting my communications is "unnecessary". I don't actually need to have done something wrong for my communications to be used against me. Innocent remarks can be incredibly easy to misconstrue, intentionally or unintentionally. Just because I have nothing to hide doesn't mean I have nothing to fear.
And with so many idiots out there already shitting themselves over Trump being Super Ultra TurboHitler, there's no incentive to stop the fear mongering any time soon.
Don't have to stop it. Just have to fight fire with fire. There is no way to have a secure internet without encryption where only the "good guys" (ahem...) have access to your dirty little secrets. Just point out all the bad things that will happen without encryption and companies (like Apple) will hire all sorts of flesh eating lobbyists and lawyers effectively on your behalf to keep their cash flow going. The best defense against security theater FUD might turn out to be more FUD pointed in the opposite direction.
There also is that pesky little problems of the 4th and 5th amendments. Not the greatest of comfort in the short run but in the long run they do tend to keep the government stooges at bay over sufficiently long time periods.
it may not stop them if they decide you are a high-value target. But it stops mass surveillance dragnets in their tracks.
And that's really what privacy laws are supposed to be about. If the government has a legitimate good faith reason to be investigating someone they have the tools to do this and to a point should have reasonable rights to investigate. Broad sweeping surveillance however should not provide them the same degree of resolution on any given individual. Law enforcement and defense surveillance should have to jump through some hoops and do some actual work to target any individual. That's the entire point of the 4th Amendment we well as several others. An investigation should be harder than looking up a database record because government's have shown they cannot resist abusing such power when made available to them. The notion that encryption will somehow make it impossible for them to do their job just hasn't been shown to be true in reality.
In practical terms however the reason encryption works isn't a moral one. It works because it keeps the economic cost for police to watch a given individual remains non-trivial so that they have to pick and choose who is worth bothering to watch. It used to be that getting the records and communications required a significant expenditure of resources. With email, modern phone systems, and the internet some of that became much easier. So much easier that it causes all sorts of problems with protecting civil liberties. Encryption balances things back out. They can still come after you if they need to but it has to rise to a certain level of suspicion to make it worth their while.
Now the powers to be really have an incentive to outlaw encryption. Great!
There used to be a ban on exporting encryption software. It was classified as a munition. Of course this preposterous classification relied on the absurd assumption that nobody outside the US could develop software to do useful encryption or that they would be unwilling to distribute it if they did. Eventually the ban was lifted during the 1990s because it was hurting US companies and because it was basically an unenforceable anachronism once the internet became a thing.
That's not to say that the US (or other countries) couldn't make some idiotic laws along the lines of making use of encryption without permission a crime. Sort of the XKCD wrench approach to the problem.
I'm curious to know how they plan to transport them. It seems to me the most logical way would be by boat but could they get there quickly enough?
A container ship can cross the pacific in 2-4 weeks so that's not a big deal. Lead time would be a serious problem though for his 100 day boast. Presume it takes 20 days to transport the batteries and maybe another 30-40 to build them all (probably optimistic), they would be left with maybe a month to design, install and test the whole thing. Not saying it would be impossible but it would be a tight squeeze most likely unless he has already built the batteries and designed the system. He could probably get it up and running quickly but perhaps not at full capacity.
The password rules wouldn't be quite so annoying if they could agree on a common set of rules. Website A wants caps, numbers and no special characters. Website B wants special characters, caps and numbers. This means more passwords, more permutations of passwords and the end result is worse security because of all the problems with forgetting passwords. I don't know that there is an easy solution but a start would be to have the same password rules everywhere whenever possible and they should follow whatever the currently acknowledged evidence based best practices are. (balancing usability with security of course)
Making the problem worse is every f***ing website wanting you to make an account with them even when doing so is of no benefit to me. Guest checkout should ALWAYS be an option. I'm not going to become a repeat customer because you make me create an account. I'll become a repeat customer because your service and prices rock and you provide something I need.
Net neutrality is just a way to keep the ISPs honest if you insist on letting them keep their local cable/phone monopolies. If you get rid of the monopolies and allow competition, then you don't need to enforce net neutrality
You will never get competition in last mile delivery because the economics of it make it impractical.
What needs to happen is that the companies providing the pipe should have an arms length relationship with any content providers. Comcast should be able to provide me a pipe to my house or to provide me content over that pipe but not both. Comcast cannot both own NBC and transmit its content over Comcast data lines. Given that it is economically impractical to have more than 1-2 data lines coming into any given dwelling it is unlikely that the local phone/cable monopolies will ever disappear. For economic reasons they are a natural monopoly because competition actually increases costs plus building and maintaining such a network is prohibitively expensive to new market entrants. So the dividing line should be pipe or content. Pick one and never cross that line. Collusion between pipe providers and content providers should be explicitly illegal and prosecutable under anti-trust laws.
It's called Montreal Smoked Meat, it's famous
Had it and some of it was respectable but, at least from the places I had it, not even close to the quality of BBQ brisket I can get in the US nor as good as the brisket deli meats (pastrami & corned beef esp) I can get in NYC or a few other select places south of the border. I'm sure there are some places the do Montreal Smoked Meat extremely well but what I've had was merely decent at best. Bear in mind that when I say I haven't had great brisket in Canada you have to understand that I've had some AMAZING brisket in the US from some of the best Texas, Caroline and Kansas City BBQ places as well as some of the best deli's in the US. I very much doubt there is anybody in the world who does brisket better than the best BBQ pit masters or the best delis in the USA. If you know of a great brisket restaurant in Canada I'd love to give it a try.
For those not familiar, Montreal Smoked Meat is sort of a cousin of pastrami or corned beef that is then smoked and steamed. It's usually more of a deli meat than BBQ though it can share features of each. It's can be very solid eats and worth trying if you can find a good restaurant that serves it. If you've had Montreal steak seasoning then you have a vague appreciation of the flavors we are talking about because it is based on Montreal Smoked Meat.
You need to get out more (I'm an entire continent away and I know all about Montreal Smoked Meat).
I have worked in Canada, vacationed there several times a year for many years, and was married in Canada. I've been everywhere from British Columbia and Alberta to Ontario and hope to get to the east coast soon. I currently live less than 40 miles from the Canadian border. Unless you are Canadian I'm reasonably confident I'm more familiar with Canada then you are.
Why the hell a wall?
Because it makes a bunch of racist, idiot conservatives think they are solving an actual problem. People coming here to work - the horror... Ironically they could keep all the brown skinned people out much more effectively by helping Mexico boost their economy. They come here because there aren't jobs back home. What we should worry about is if the immigrants stop wanting to come here.
Done right, it is the same protection, with a lot less of an environmental impact.
Conservatives don't generally give much a shit about environmental impact. They think clean air is nothing more than a liberal plot to cost them their jobs.
Mexico's economy is booming,
Mexico's economy is something of a mixed bag and is significantly dependent on oil prices. It's a good sized economy but has rather drastic inequality between rich and poor. Those poor are the ones coming to the US because of limited opportunities back home.
Might even be wise to set up a Schengen Agreement allowing for US/Canada/Mexico free travel.
WAY too much racism and paranoia in the USA for that to be realistic though I agree it isn't a bad idea. There really isn't much point in having a guarded border between the US and Canada either.
Seems more like Turmp is interested in 'safety' to the detriment of literally everything else.
Trump has no interest in actual safety. He has a strong interest in "security" theater. Big difference between the two. One keeps us safe and the other keeps him elected. He cares about the later. Putting a wall on the US/Mexico border will do almost nothing for safety but it will do a lot to make paranoid conservatives happy.
The trick is usually to get the chopped smoked brisket on top, but really what you need to do to really enjoy poutine is get really, really drunk first.
I've never had decent smoked brisket in Canada ever. Heck, it's hard to get it north of the Mason-Dixon line in the USA, though here and there you can find a decent BBQ joint up north. Maybe someone in Canada somewhere knows how to work a smoker but it's certainly not common in the bits I've been to.
If a food requires inebriation to enjoy I think I'll pass. Taco Bell tastes good when drunk too I'm told but it's still shitty food.
On the other, they have persistently shown that state propaganda goals are a higher priority than safety.
That would be no different than the current US president.
Obama seemed to consider conservatives and Christians as a greater threat than radical Muslims.
Here in the USA they ARE a greater threat so that would be actually objectively true to most of us. Radical Muslims are rather rare here in the USA but crazy christians and paranoid delusional conservatives are a dime-a-dozen. I am FAR more likely to be murdered by a christian and/or a conservative than a muslim of any stripe. Conservatives and christians also have the ability to threaten not just my physical well being but also my civil rights thanks to their numbers, proximity and control of significant parts of our government.
I'm not worried about ISIS. I'm worried about the Tea Party and Trump and the religious right and the rest of them because they are a FAR greater threat to me and my family than any member of the islamic faith will likely ever be.
You damn well can't just say whatever you want, because at best it can cost people money. Worst case, it can cost people their lives.
You say that as if you think Trump actually gives a shit about costing other people money or their lives. I think Trump loves the fact that he can move markets with nothing more than a fact free tweet from the toilet.
Well, of course, you can't eat Fries without Ketchup, can you ?
Of course you can. And you should. Not that a little ketchup is bad but if you wouldn't eat the fries plain with just some salt then they are badly made fries. Why eat something you have to disguise the taste of? I never understood people who pile so many condiments on that they can no longer taste the food they are eating. Condiments should be used in modest amounts to enhance the flavor, not to be the flavor. A dab of ketchup is fine but if ketchup is all you can taste why bother with the fries? Ketchup just isn't THAT tasty.
Personally I almost never eat ketchup with fries. I just seek out good quality fries. Sometimes I dip them in aioli or cheese or tartar sauce (fish & chips!) or something else but I seriously can't remember the last time I busted out the ketchup bottle to dip something in - fries or otherwise.
And yet, those soils are NOTHING EVEN REMOTELY LIKE Mars soil. Seriously people, we aren't going to grow anything on Mars.
We aren't going to grow anything on Mars anytime soon. FTFY. You forgot the word soon. If we actually send manned missions to Mars someday then it is very likely (nearly certain) that we would attempt to grow something there if for no other reason than scientific curiosity. Might not be something edible but I'm sure we'd try to grow some form of plant life. Whether that effort proves productive in any way is a different discussion.
I can understand Aioli, but straight mayo? Ew.
Sure, straight mayo works on fries though that's rather boring just like ketchup is boring. Tartar sauce and aoili are great. So are all kinds of salad dressings. Honey mustard is tasty. BBQ sauce works. Melted cheese is great too. Honestly though if you wouldn't eat the fries plain (just salt) without dipping them in something first then they are crap fries not worthy of consumption. Whatever you are dipping fries into should make already good fries better. Same with hot dogs or other sausages - if you won't eat them plain then eat something else. Condiments should enhance the flavor not be the flavor. If all you want to taste is the condiment then why not just eat the condiment and save the calories for something better?
Poutine sauce is what belongs there.
"Poutine sauce"? The word you are looking for is gravy because that's what it is. Poutine is fine but in my opinion highly overrated. I've spent loads of time in Canada and I've seldom had poutine that was actually good. Mostly it's a cheap crappy thin gravy with some not very tasty cheese curd thrown in on top of some badly done fries. It's a dish that is WAY more popular than the taste should justify. I'm sure it can be done well but that's not what is usually sold.
The worldwide warehouse and logistics robot unit shipments will increase from 40,000 robots in 2016 to 620,000 robots annually by 2021, according to highly reliable numbers from Tractica
Translation:
An uncorroborated study from a company nobody has ever heard but which sells market "analysis" of the robotics industry (as well as several other trendy verticals) makes outlandish claim without providing any supporting evidence.
"Highly reliable numbers"? Why should we take it as given that they are highly reliable? Because they said so?
You can see by how many foreign auto-makers chose to put assembly plants in the U.S. that it can make good financial sense.
Modern auto assembly plants are highly automated and don't employ massive numbers of people anymore. Foreign automakers build plants in the US for several reasons but two are particularly important. 1) They are building a car for sale primarily in that market and have no plans to export it and 2) as a hedge against currency fluctuations. If you build a plant in Japan and ship the cars to the US you run into the problem of currency risk. If the Yen were to rise against the Dollar (1 Yen buys more Dollars) then the price of your cars just went up because each dollar can buy fewer cars made in Japan. But if you make the car in the US you don't have that problem because there is no currency conversion. Currency fluctuations can work in your favor too but it's a big risk and the car companies cannot control the relative values of currencies. This is exactly why China has so much US debt. They have kept their currency intentionally weak because it makes their exports more competitive. If the Yuan were to rise against the Dollar significantly it would make everything made in China more expensive.
But there's a whole lot of more advanced manufacturing of physically large objects that makes sense to do in America.
Exactly. Germany does this rather well and believe it or not so does the US. It's capital intensive manufacturing. Chasing poorly paying labor intensive manufacturing jobs is a fools errand.
I have the same question to many people who bitch and moan about their jobs going to China... 10, 15 years ago... and still live in the same economically depressed towns without learning anything during all that time.
Well said. There is a famous saying that if you aren't getting better you are getting worse. Just because you stand still doesn't mean anyone else will.
We are past manufacturing.
Not remotely. We just are past labor intensive manufacturing and we are only past that in the US because our cost of labor is so high relative to other parts of the world. We still do capital intensive manufacturing to the tune of about $3 Trillion per year. The US manufacturing sector would be one of the ten largest economies in the world by itself. We don't make happy meal toys. We make jumbo jets and cars and earth movers and semiconductors and drugs and lots of other complicated stuff that requires more than a high school diploma to design and make. The only country with a larger manufacturing sector is China and not by much. Per-capita theirs is much smaller. Manufacturing in the US is alive and well. It just isn't the same system your father and grandfather grew up it.
We are in a post-industrial setup and no amount of barriers would have prevented globalization.
That is a nonsensical statement. There is nothing "post-industrial" about our economy. You are correct about globalization being more or less inevitable but it's not because we are "post-industrial" anything. It's because communication and transportation and logistics systems and infrastructure improved so much that it made it economically inevitable. We can literally travel halfway around the world in a single day. We can talk in real time to people on other continents. We have ships that are literally the size of small towns and aircraft that are bigger than the ships that Columbus used to cross the Atlantic. We have a world wide network of information with all of humanity's knowledge. It's cheaper to build a car and ship it across oceans in some cases than to build it next door.
Once you send out the manufacturing jobs, once you send out the service jobs, once you send out the research jobs, what's left?
A reversion to the mean. The US has some of the highest wages in the world. That's great but if we want to keep it that way we need to be doing things that are hard to replicate outside the US. That means investing in research and education and technology and infrastructure and supply chains. All things that have payoffs which are measured in decades. There is nothing special about the US that entitles workers here to abnormally high wages when the work can be done adequately well in locations with lower labor costs. If we want higher than average wages then we need to do things that will get higher than average results.
That's why a lot of the rhetoric coming from Washington about "bringing back manufacturing jobs" is just nonsense. Unless you want to accompany it with a reduction in wages to significantly lower amounts than we currently expect. Those jobs left because they were labor intensive and labor costs were substantially lower elsewhere. If the job can be done in China for $2/hour, you aren't going to compete on labor intensive manufacturing with wages of $15/hour or more. No amount of political promises will change that fact. Those jobs aren't coming back unless a drastic drop in wages comes with them. I'm pretty sure we don't actually want that.
1) Many Apple customers don't care about a headphone jack
Continued strong Apple stales of iPhones is proof that this is almost certainly true.
2) Enough Apple customers are willing to shell out extra for the BT earbuds.
There seems to be ample evidence that this is true as well. Plus I'm sure many are just fine with the earbuds that come with their phone. Most people want something that works and aren't super fussy about the exact connector used to do it. As long as it doesn't get in their way they won't care.
Maybe the bulk of the people that care enough about a headphone jack that it sways their purchasing decision wouldn't buy an Apple product anyway.
You are probably mostly talking about the loud tech geeks and android fanbois who seem to think that any company who doesn't provide a product that is exactly tailored to their particular needs/tastes is evil incarnate and should die in a fire.
Personally I don't give a shit about the 3.5mm jack for or against. I barely used it when my phone had one. For the rare occasion when I might need one I'm fine with an adapter. I connect to my car and my headphones via bluetooth and to my home stereo via wifi. Fumbling with wires that invariably are tangled is annoying and this is coming from someone who makes their living manufacturing wire harnesses! I don't deny that the 3.5mm jack was useful to many people but I also don't think it is as mission critical as many made it out to be. The lack of one hasn't affected me one tiny little bit.
So PC companies held out and provided ports and functionality until they were absolutely sure no one wanted them?
No, they sold them to millions of customers who didn't actually need or want them for years after it was clear nobody needed or wanted them. All those legacy ports/devices did was add cost for 99%+ of customers. For the few who still needed floppy disks or 25pin Dsub serial ports there always has been the option to add them via expansions slots or USB adapters.
Honestly the 3.5 inch floppy disk should have died in a fire years before it actually did.