It's a dichotomy, but it's not a false dichotomy. It's the nature of American politics. There are two sides, exactly two sides. Anyone who doesn't pick a side is effectively excluded. The number of people in house and senate combined who don't come with an R or D next to their name is in the single digits, and has been for a very long time. There are two major political factions, who are inseparably linked to the two major political parties in such a way that they both define and are defined by each other.
This is not the way things should be, but it is the way things are.
It's not the wall, it's the attitude the wall represents. There are people who want into the US, and the two major factions see those people in very different ways. The liberals see a horde of desperate people - impoverished, oppressed, starving, fleeing lives of violence and hoping to start a new life. To them, only a true monster could ever turn away such people and leave them to die. The conservatives see an unruly mob of criminals, murderers and rapists, and believe that the country must be defended against this threat. To them, only a naive idealist could fail to recognise the deadly criminal menace and the importance of holding it at bay.
It's impossible to reach agreement with the liberals regard conservatives as racist monsters and the conservatives regard liberals as retarded hippies.
Pence is at least a known factor. He's a straight-ticket Republican on all issues. We all know his policies, and he'd do what he could to advance those policies in the conventional way. I disagree with him on practically everything, but I am still confident that he is not going to wake up grumpy one morning and order a nuclear missile strike on North Korea. With Trump, anything is possible.
Because it's happened before. Single companies have revolutionised the internet. Google did search better than anyone had before, Microsoft developed operating systems that made it possible for anyone to use a computer without months of training, facebook took the established idea of a journal website and advanced it into social networking. Billions of dollars were made, the the internet was revolutionised. Those were different times though, and it is not so easy these days. The internet is no longer experiencing an explosive growth and the creation of untapped markets, where the right idea at the right time could change everything.
It's always been semi-centralised. I think you have the problem wrong though. It's discovery. The vast amount of data on the internet is just too much to handle without aggregation and curation services, and those are where much of the centralisation now lies. If I post a video on my own website, no-one is going to see it - but if I put it on youtube, people will. Even if people had a properly decentralised hosting platform like bittorrent or IPFS to store data, it'd still need centralised services to find it, and those will be subject to the usual economy of scale effect: No-one wants to use a social service which has no users on it. The bigger they get, the more useful they are, so naturally one or two platforms will rise to total dominance.
You don't need money upfront, but it's a huge help. People who work their way up to success from poor beginnings can be found, but they are the exception, not the rule. There are just enough to provide a sense of hope for the lower classes ("I must work harder!") and a sense of moral reassurance for the upper classes ("Lazy poor people just don't want to work hard enough, so they get no sympathy from me.")
Law and politics are long-term careers. To reach the top takes decades of career advancement - which means the people who occupy them now generally grew up in a time when computer technology was known to the public only as sci-fi movie props showing spinning tape drives and rampaging robots. That they understand technology today at all is a sign of impressive adaptability, given how rapidly it has advanced. The IBM PC is less than fourty years old, and internet access has been available to the public at large for less than thirty. When the first provider started making access to Usenet available to anyone with money and a modem, John McCain was already 56.
It's just part of the political divide that completely dominates US culture. Electric cars mean concern for the environment, which means the owners can be assumed to be hippy liberal types who hate freedom and deserve to be covered in good American soot.
I actually can envision ways to rig the advertising without paying actors. But paying is probably a lot easier. For example, I could hire someone to monitor Twitch or YouTube live streams for people playing on the site, then correlate their wins with the real-time logs from the server to identify their accounts, and tag those accounts as 'highly visible people' so they get a guaranteed win. It's a lot of effort though, so it'd be easier to just find some unscrupulous mid-tier streamers and bribe them.
But what sort of scam? there are many types. The advertising is almost certainly a scam, yes - but what of the site itsself? Is it an outright scam where no prizes of value are ever won, ever? Or is it merely the acceptable scam of gambling, where the big prizes are won, but only incredibly rarely?
Could he maybe offer some specifics? Exactly what is is that China is being accused of stealing? A claim this lacking in detail is suspiciously non-falsifiable.
I've seen it first-hand working in a school. It's interesting to see how many ways students can find to look at Fortnite guides, characters, dances, etc. It's not as simple as blocking the game name as a search string, they start googling on the names of in-game items, skins and such. Then there is that 'Just Build' - lost count of how many students had downloaded that one before I noticed the sudden surge in disk usage and stuck it on the SRP blacklist. They still keep downloading it now, and it's difficult to keep it out of their google drives, even though they can't actually make it run any more.
Every point made here is just as true from the other side too. I know China is investing heavily in developing high-end microprocessor designs and manufacturing capability, but shouldn't it make strategic sense for them to also spend as much money as it takes to purge their country of Microsoft? Windows Update could be easily repurposed for espionage, and even if the US government doesn't control it yet, they could surely do so if they situation was desperate enough. I'd expect China to be throwing huge piles of money into transitioning away from Windows entirely for all military and government functions, and all major companies too. They even tried with Red Flag Linux, and that ended badly. China is striving for hardware manufacturing capability, but seems to be unconcerned over software.
Wood furnaces, surprisingly, are carbon-neutral: The carbon they release exactly balances the carbon taken in to grow the trees. In principle anyway - there is still the emissions cost of collecting and transportint the fuel. They are terrible for particulate emissions though - lots of smog.
I doubt the uniforms really have GPS tracking. Simple issue of battery life and cost. More likely it's just a long-range RFID tag, and a bunch of readers dotted around the school that pick up every time a student passes by. Explains why they aren't tracked outside of school.
I work at a perfectly ordinary school in the UK. We issue all students with chips - in the form of identity cards. These cards contain a photo of the student and a simple RFID chip. They serve as passes to open doors, as identifiers for paying for lunch, as their library card, and for identifying themselves to the printer-copiers. They are also supposed to be an essential part of our safeguarding procedures, because without these cards any teenager could wander in and pose as one of our students - though in practice this doesn't work so well, because students are constantly losing, forgetting or defacing their cards. The girls in particular often hold the view that their photo is the ugliest thing ever taken, and will scratch it off of their badge rather than allow anyone to glimpse their shameful image. Students also routinely body-slam the doors to force the magnetic locks open, or loiter outside waiting for someone else to come through, because they left their badge at home or lost it. Issuing RDIF badges is a very common practice - schools have been doing it for years.
So some schools in China put the ID chips into the uniform. It's the obvious next step: An identifier that, hopefully, the horrible creatures won't lose or destroy within a week.
The only thing we don't use the cards for is attendance. Too easy to defraud - if we did that then any student could bunk off for the day and just lend their badge to a friend to beep them in. I suppose facial or fingerprint recognition could fix that, if you can get it working reliably.
You're actually not far off. I saw this same story on a very heavily right-leaning, pro-Republican news site earlier today. Their headline is "EPA targets Obama crackdown on mercury from coal plants."
If you want a Republican readership to oppose anything, just claim Obama was in favor.
There's another option: Improve transport so that unskilled workers can commute in from further away. The unskilled workers won't like it, because no-one likes spending three hours a day commuting, but it'll keep wages low which is what a lot of people want.
Lithium-ion cells contain practically no elemental lithium. They do contain a lot of lithium compounds, but no significant amount of elemental lithium. The electrolytes are very flammable though, which is why they go up in flames so readily.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a dichotomy, but it's not a false dichotomy. It's the nature of American politics. There are two sides, exactly two sides. Anyone who doesn't pick a side is effectively excluded. The number of people in house and senate combined who don't come with an R or D next to their name is in the single digits, and has been for a very long time. There are two major political factions, who are inseparably linked to the two major political parties in such a way that they both define and are defined by each other.
This is not the way things should be, but it is the way things are.
It's not the wall, it's the attitude the wall represents. There are people who want into the US, and the two major factions see those people in very different ways. The liberals see a horde of desperate people - impoverished, oppressed, starving, fleeing lives of violence and hoping to start a new life. To them, only a true monster could ever turn away such people and leave them to die. The conservatives see an unruly mob of criminals, murderers and rapists, and believe that the country must be defended against this threat. To them, only a naive idealist could fail to recognise the deadly criminal menace and the importance of holding it at bay.
It's impossible to reach agreement with the liberals regard conservatives as racist monsters and the conservatives regard liberals as retarded hippies.
Pence is at least a known factor. He's a straight-ticket Republican on all issues. We all know his policies, and he'd do what he could to advance those policies in the conventional way. I disagree with him on practically everything, but I am still confident that he is not going to wake up grumpy one morning and order a nuclear missile strike on North Korea. With Trump, anything is possible.
There is still a clear correlation, though one that is steadily lessening as time passes. Wealth and skin color are both inherited.
Because it's happened before. Single companies have revolutionised the internet. Google did search better than anyone had before, Microsoft developed operating systems that made it possible for anyone to use a computer without months of training, facebook took the established idea of a journal website and advanced it into social networking. Billions of dollars were made, the the internet was revolutionised. Those were different times though, and it is not so easy these days. The internet is no longer experiencing an explosive growth and the creation of untapped markets, where the right idea at the right time could change everything.
It's always been semi-centralised. I think you have the problem wrong though. It's discovery. The vast amount of data on the internet is just too much to handle without aggregation and curation services, and those are where much of the centralisation now lies. If I post a video on my own website, no-one is going to see it - but if I put it on youtube, people will. Even if people had a properly decentralised hosting platform like bittorrent or IPFS to store data, it'd still need centralised services to find it, and those will be subject to the usual economy of scale effect: No-one wants to use a social service which has no users on it. The bigger they get, the more useful they are, so naturally one or two platforms will rise to total dominance.
You don't need money upfront, but it's a huge help. People who work their way up to success from poor beginnings can be found, but they are the exception, not the rule. There are just enough to provide a sense of hope for the lower classes ("I must work harder!") and a sense of moral reassurance for the upper classes ("Lazy poor people just don't want to work hard enough, so they get no sympathy from me.")
Law and politics are long-term careers. To reach the top takes decades of career advancement - which means the people who occupy them now generally grew up in a time when computer technology was known to the public only as sci-fi movie props showing spinning tape drives and rampaging robots. That they understand technology today at all is a sign of impressive adaptability, given how rapidly it has advanced. The IBM PC is less than fourty years old, and internet access has been available to the public at large for less than thirty. When the first provider started making access to Usenet available to anyone with money and a modem, John McCain was already 56.
It's just part of the political divide that completely dominates US culture. Electric cars mean concern for the environment, which means the owners can be assumed to be hippy liberal types who hate freedom and deserve to be covered in good American soot.
Not directly, anyway.
I actually can envision ways to rig the advertising without paying actors. But paying is probably a lot easier. For example, I could hire someone to monitor Twitch or YouTube live streams for people playing on the site, then correlate their wins with the real-time logs from the server to identify their accounts, and tag those accounts as 'highly visible people' so they get a guaranteed win. It's a lot of effort though, so it'd be easier to just find some unscrupulous mid-tier streamers and bribe them.
But what sort of scam? there are many types. The advertising is almost certainly a scam, yes - but what of the site itsself? Is it an outright scam where no prizes of value are ever won, ever? Or is it merely the acceptable scam of gambling, where the big prizes are won, but only incredibly rarely?
I had a laptop with gesture trackpad back in the 90s. Turned them off though, because tapping too near one corner kept opening the start menu.
Could he maybe offer some specifics? Exactly what is is that China is being accused of stealing? A claim this lacking in detail is suspiciously non-falsifiable.
I've seen it first-hand working in a school. It's interesting to see how many ways students can find to look at Fortnite guides, characters, dances, etc. It's not as simple as blocking the game name as a search string, they start googling on the names of in-game items, skins and such. Then there is that 'Just Build' - lost count of how many students had downloaded that one before I noticed the sudden surge in disk usage and stuck it on the SRP blacklist. They still keep downloading it now, and it's difficult to keep it out of their google drives, even though they can't actually make it run any more.
Every point made here is just as true from the other side too. I know China is investing heavily in developing high-end microprocessor designs and manufacturing capability, but shouldn't it make strategic sense for them to also spend as much money as it takes to purge their country of Microsoft? Windows Update could be easily repurposed for espionage, and even if the US government doesn't control it yet, they could surely do so if they situation was desperate enough. I'd expect China to be throwing huge piles of money into transitioning away from Windows entirely for all military and government functions, and all major companies too. They even tried with Red Flag Linux, and that ended badly. China is striving for hardware manufacturing capability, but seems to be unconcerned over software.
Wood furnaces, surprisingly, are carbon-neutral: The carbon they release exactly balances the carbon taken in to grow the trees. In principle anyway - there is still the emissions cost of collecting and transportint the fuel. They are terrible for particulate emissions though - lots of smog.
I doubt the uniforms really have GPS tracking. Simple issue of battery life and cost. More likely it's just a long-range RFID tag, and a bunch of readers dotted around the school that pick up every time a student passes by. Explains why they aren't tracked outside of school.
In various forms. The original is long-gone, but it's been mirrored both with and without authorization at various times.
It's also been archived into IPFS.
https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmT85wMjW...
I work at a perfectly ordinary school in the UK. We issue all students with chips - in the form of identity cards. These cards contain a photo of the student and a simple RFID chip. They serve as passes to open doors, as identifiers for paying for lunch, as their library card, and for identifying themselves to the printer-copiers. They are also supposed to be an essential part of our safeguarding procedures, because without these cards any teenager could wander in and pose as one of our students - though in practice this doesn't work so well, because students are constantly losing, forgetting or defacing their cards. The girls in particular often hold the view that their photo is the ugliest thing ever taken, and will scratch it off of their badge rather than allow anyone to glimpse their shameful image. Students also routinely body-slam the doors to force the magnetic locks open, or loiter outside waiting for someone else to come through, because they left their badge at home or lost it. Issuing RDIF badges is a very common practice - schools have been doing it for years.
So some schools in China put the ID chips into the uniform. It's the obvious next step: An identifier that, hopefully, the horrible creatures won't lose or destroy within a week.
The only thing we don't use the cards for is attendance. Too easy to defraud - if we did that then any student could bunk off for the day and just lend their badge to a friend to beep them in. I suppose facial or fingerprint recognition could fix that, if you can get it working reliably.
Sounds like what people used to call 'cutting off your nose to spite your face.'
If you regard politics as a team sport, Democrats vs Republicans, then anything that hurts the opposing team is automatically a win for your own.
You're actually not far off. I saw this same story on a very heavily right-leaning, pro-Republican news site earlier today. Their headline is "EPA targets Obama crackdown on mercury from coal plants."
If you want a Republican readership to oppose anything, just claim Obama was in favor.
There's another option: Improve transport so that unskilled workers can commute in from further away. The unskilled workers won't like it, because no-one likes spending three hours a day commuting, but it'll keep wages low which is what a lot of people want.
Lithium-ion cells contain practically no elemental lithium. They do contain a lot of lithium compounds, but no significant amount of elemental lithium. The electrolytes are very flammable though, which is why they go up in flames so readily.