I'm not so sure it's a crock. I don't think that Clinton should challenge the election results, because even if the electronic voting machines were manipulated in Trump's favor, it's still clear that the voters were split basically down the middle so picking the wrong narrow-margin winner isn't a significant failure of democracy. Throwing the new president's legitimacy in serious doubt, perhaps causing a delay and a new election or possibly worse, would be.
However, I think we really should take a very hard look at these sorts of irregularities, both odd differences between counties that do and don't use the voting machines, and unusual discrepancies between exit polls and official results. And where the irregularities are significant, we should take a hard look at how the vote might have been manipulated and close those holes. I think the best way to do that is to institute a verifiable voting scheme like Chaum's Scantegrity III, but it could also be done by switching to paper ballots, or even by closer and more thorough auditing of the voting machine configuration and usage (though the latter is really difficult).
The bottom line is that it's very bad for our democracy to have these sorts of open questions. There will always be potential for election fraud, but we need to have confidence that it is sufficiently small that it can tip only the tightest of races. Right now I don't think we have that.
Not really. I mean anyone who plays Pokémon Go (kid does) knows as soon as you speed up in a car the app asks you if you are the passenger and you have to click ok to continue.
Thus creating an additional distraction for the driver, who now needs to look at his phone to find and tap the "I'm a passenger" button.
Does it let you say Crackers or Honkeys? If so, then yes, it's biased.
Are those words common in GNAA crapfloods? And even if they are, if blocking one word is enough to stop/reduce it and blocking more wouldn't help, then why bother?
BTW... Apparently Slashdot also has a left-leaning bias. Wont' let me say "Nig.ers" with two 'g's.
Remember that as you read all the other posts here. This is a left-leaning site.
I hadn't realized that was in place. However, it's not so much evidence of left leaning or PC as it is a simple and obvious reaction to a long-standing category of slashdot trolls (https://encyclopediadramatica.se/GNAA).
In the literal sense, they are retarded compared to children of similar age 40 years ago. Their grammar and word usage is worse, their punctuation is worse. Their grasp of mathematics is worse. Their knowledge of history is worse. Their cognizance of current events is worse.
No wonder they are susceptible to propaganda for the stupid. They are in fact the ignorant and stupid, relative to their parents and grandparents.
Cite? You've made a lot of claims, but offered zero evidence.
One difference between the civil and software engineering examples that strikes me is that the civil engineer only has to ensure that the building never falls down due to natural and expected forces. If someone sets off a large truck bomb in the basement, the building *will* fall down, and everyone understands that's not the civil engineer's fault because that attack was outside of the normal and accepted design parameters.
That's not to say that we don't defend buildings against truck bombs. We do, but we do it with other mechanisms. We have regulations that attempt to restrict the availability of explosives. We have law enforcement and court systems that attempt to deter people from blowing up buildings by threatening them with punishment if they do. In some cases, for buildings that seem to be at particularly high risk, we apply various other security measures to control what vehicles can be driven into the basement, and by whom. We also have infrastructure in place that attempts to monitor whether or not some individuals or groups might be interested in trying to blow up a specific building, and devise and implement countermeasures dynamically as needed.
In the case of software, the responsibility of software engineers is not nearly as clear as it is for civil engineers. Largely this is because software engineering is still a very young profession as compared to civil engineering, and it's still evolving rapidly. In some cases, the tools and techniques used by attackers didn't even exist when the software was written. In most cases, the tools and techniques did exist and were well-known to attackers and security engineers, but not to the people who wrote the software. This indicates a failure of the profession to educate its members... but given the pace at which attack techniques develop and the pace at which the software industry is and has been expanding, it's a failure without obvious solution. Simply applying the same sort of regulation and procedures applied to civil engineering would be massive overkill that would dramatically decrease the ability of the industry to produce software and probably wouldn't solve the problem.
Clearly, we need to create more secure software. The status quo is generally terrible. There are exceptions; there are organizations that do excellent security engineering and we have a good collection of tools and practices for making software that is much better than the norm. On the other hand, no matter what we do during development there will always exist the potential for a truck bomb, an attack which was simply outside the parameters that it made sense to defend against. That means we'll always need additional, "active" defenses.
In the case of the hospital equipment, that means that processes developed for medical equipment not based on software simply don't work. FDA approvals hinder security because they make patching far more expensive and difficult than it should be. We can attempt to build security perimeters around all of the equipment, but experience proves that that's a fool's errand. There's always some way in and once inside the perimeter attackers can run amok.
Our current (but rapidly evolving!) best understanding of how to make software reliable in the face of active attack is a multi-layered strategy. It starts with good software engineering practices that attempt to minimize well-understood risks (buffer overflows, SQL injection, XSS, etc.). Then we try to add firebreaks wherever possible and reasonable, so that compromise of one component doesn't compromise the system as a whole. Such firebreaks mostly consist in locking down any communication channels between components that aren't actually necessary, within processes, between processes, and between devices on networks. We also try to authenticate users and keep them restricted to the functions they can legitimately perform. Then at every level we do regular penetration testing and work to identify and patch vulnerabilities before they can be exploited -- because there will
Two regulations have to be removed for every new one created - while you strangle as regulations pile up.
And if you don't have enough you get the 2008 financial crisis.
More precisely if you have just the wrong amount, you get the 2008 financial crisis. That crisis was caused as much by too much regulation as too little. The core problem was that investors believed that regulators had their backs, but in fact regulators were doing nothing to vet the securitized mortgage industry. In a world without financial industry regulation, investors would have been wary and done the checking themselves but as it was even when analysts raised red flags no one believed them because surely if the mortgage-backed securities were that bad the SEC would have stepped in and either shut them down or at least warned about them.
A completely unregulated financial market has pros and cons, as does heavy regulation, but the worst possible world is the one in which everyone believes regulators are in control when they're not.
(Do not in any way construe this as an endorsement of Trump or his policies. The man is an idiot and a maniac and if he accidentally does anything right it will be in spite of himself.)
It uses loopholes in EU tax laws and does not repatriate non-US income (to avoid additional taxes). Under no change of those laws would it's US tax base increase
I'm not sure if you're including US law in "those laws", but if the US had sufficiently low corporate income tax rates companies whose primary operations are in the US would repatriate a large portion of that money to where they can more easily invest it in growth, which would increase US tax revenues in two ways. First, the US would collect some tax on the repatriated money and second, when the money is spent in the US much of it would get taxed again. Payroll taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, etc.
Thanks for the correction. However, you should be concered that the 100 million figure didn't trigger an automatic "Wait, what?" sanity check, with or without coffee. There's no way that a third of the US population works in fast food.
Also, I don't think fast food operations will be that quick to automate. Several chains have experimented with automating the customer interface, and customers don't like it. They want to order from people. They could still try to automate the kitchen, but that's already done to a large degree, and given the low labor costs I think it'll take a while to replace the remaining people involved in food preparation.
There's another industry of almost equal size, though, that is ripe for automation -- truck driving. It's going to happen, soon. The DoT is already working hard to revise regulations to make it possible, and it makes far too much sense not to happen quickly. Long-distance freeway driving is very easy to automate, and the drivers of big trucks are not only far better paid than fast food workers, they're actually a pretty severe constraint on full utilization of the capital-intensive part of the industry: the trucks. Regulations put strict limits on the hours drivers can drive which leaves $200K trucks idle for hours every day. The fact that the trucks are expensive also means that an incremental capital expenditure of even $100K additional for the self-driving system is easily absorbed. It'd pay for itself in just two years just in avoided labor expenses, but in well under one year when the ability of the truck to continue operating almost continuously 24x7 is factored in.
Further, long-haul trucking can be automated incrementally. If we only allow the trucks to self-drive on the freeway, the industry can station drivers at freeway exits to get on board and do the more-complex in-town driving. Or where that's not feasible, they can even have a driver on board to handle the in-town part -- but pay him less because he "works" less, and still gain the benefit of 24x7 operation. As the self-driving systems get better (or just more trusted), they can incrementally reduce the human-driven miles until it approaches zero.
I can think of perhaps two occasions in the last six months I've done so, both times for meetings in which I needed everyone to follow along with my presentation.
You don't have projectors (or large monitors) in the conference rooms? I think that's a better solution because it allows you to control which part of the document they're looking at.
We have large monitors that are used for both video conferencing and presentations. Most rooms have dual screens, so you can do both at once; the remote participants appear on one screen while any presentation displays on the other. Of course, remote participants can also see the presentation. If they have only one screen they see the presentation by default though they can override that if they'd rather see who is talking. I'm usually remote so I typically connect to the VC with two devices and show the document in one and the video of the other room(s) in the other.
Actually, documents being presented are often Google docs and it's not uncommon for everyone in the meeting to have edit permission and be making changes during the discussion. This is pure awesomeness for design reviews. By the time the meeting is over all of the discussed changes are already made and the author/presenter doesn't have to spend time updating the design to reflect the results of the discussion.
All of this would be impossible to do as effectively with paper.
No, the population crisis that is coming is one of not *enough* people, rather than too many. Some northern European countries are already facing this issue, especially since their systems for supporting the elderly require that there be plenty of young people working. Denmark, for example, has been running ads for several years now, encouraging couples to do the patriotic thing for their country by having babies.
And this is where it doesn't add up anymore, jobs are going away due to automation... but we don't have enough young people to fill the jobs? You can't simultaneously have too few jobs and too few employees.
It's possible the problems will offset one another.
Doesn't matter. The big drain is powering the radios. It takes juice to transmit signals strongly enough that distant towers can pick them up, and to boost weak incoming signals. More efficient local processing doesn't make a significant difference.
Our capability to understand our entire planet is FAR greater today than it was in 1016 A.D.
And our knowledge and capabilities are growing orders of magnitude faster today than they were in 1016, and the rate continues to accelerate. The logical conclusion is that the gap between our 3016 knowledge and capabilities and our 2016 knowledge and capabilities will be several orders of magnitude larger than the gap between 2016 and 1016.
That, in turn, means that we're less able to project 1000 years into the future than we were 1000 years ago, not more.
Call me when the overall curve is heading downhill.
<ring>
The developed world is calling you, and the second derivative is already negative globally. The world population growth rate should hit zero around 2050 and then begin declining.
To put it another way, the number of children born per year is already declining and has been for some time. The only reason the population isn't already declining is that the global population is still skewed young. Today's population growth is entirely due to the "filling out" of the age distribution. If you divide the population into five generations, each of 20 years -- so you have the 0-19, 20-39, 40-59, 60-79 and 80-99 groups -- There are about 2B in each of the first two groups, then it drops off rapidly. As the upper groups fill out over the next 35 years or so, you'll end up with roughly 2B per generation times five generations, for a total of about 10B people. Barring significant life extension, that will be the peak. Because the supply flowing into the first generation is slowly declining, the overall population will then begin to decline.
That's if current demographic trends continue, but it's likely that they'll accelerate. The biggest factors in reducing birthrates are (1) female education (2) infant survival rate and (3) wealth. Educated women who have confidence their children will survive and the resources to invest in them tend to have few children and invest heavily in the education and development of those fewer children. Since the trends in the developing world (the areas still producing lots of babies) are toward more education, better availability of medical services and increasing wealth in the developing world, it's likely that the current birth rate numbers will be further reduced.
No, the population crisis that is coming is one of not *enough* people, rather than too many. Some northern European countries are already facing this issue, especially since their systems for supporting the elderly require that there be plenty of young people working. Denmark, for example, has been running ads for several years now, encouraging couples to do the patriotic thing for their country by having babies.
The one thing that might change this is if medical technology progresses to allow the average person to live many decades longer. Add another 2B to the peak population for every 20 years of (universally-available) life extension.
But hey, Elon Musk can claim all he wants, that's marketing (ie. damn lies.)
As long as he says it's the fasted car in production, he's telling the truth. The 918 is out of production (only 918 made, in 2014), as is the Rimac Concept On(only 8 made, also in 2013-2014). Also, everything I can find on the Rimac lists 0-60 times of 2.6-2.8 seconds, making it slower.
Right. That makes him a misogynist, and demonstrates deep lack of character.
That he leads and serves as executive chairman for a racist newspaper doesn't make him racist.
Yes, it does. He is in a position to direct the paper to stop being racist, and doesn't. Further, it was when he took over that it took hard racist turn. He doesn't just passively profit from racism (though that would be bad enough, honestly), he actively directs it.
but none give quotes in his own words that are directly racist. Sure, a few have a tinge or dog whistle, but none are overtly racist. You'd think if it was so obvious, someone would be able to provide a quote.
Assuming that's true, it just means he's careful. The "tinge and dog whistle" approach allows him to speak clearly to his fellow racists but attempts to provide plausible deniability. Though anyone who actually looks will find it implausible.
I don't get why people want to defend someone like Bannon, unless they also are misogynists and racists. And if they are, why don't they just say so rather than trying to claim he's not?
Slashdot Mirror
She lost in places that don't have the money to buy fancy electronic voting machines because the people are poorer.
No, she lost in places that do have the money to buy fancy electronic voting machines.
It's a crock. The only "irregularity" is that their side lost. http://www.vox.com/2016/11/22/...
I'm not so sure it's a crock. I don't think that Clinton should challenge the election results, because even if the electronic voting machines were manipulated in Trump's favor, it's still clear that the voters were split basically down the middle so picking the wrong narrow-margin winner isn't a significant failure of democracy. Throwing the new president's legitimacy in serious doubt, perhaps causing a delay and a new election or possibly worse, would be.
However, I think we really should take a very hard look at these sorts of irregularities, both odd differences between counties that do and don't use the voting machines, and unusual discrepancies between exit polls and official results. And where the irregularities are significant, we should take a hard look at how the vote might have been manipulated and close those holes. I think the best way to do that is to institute a verifiable voting scheme like Chaum's Scantegrity III, but it could also be done by switching to paper ballots, or even by closer and more thorough auditing of the voting machine configuration and usage (though the latter is really difficult).
The bottom line is that it's very bad for our democracy to have these sorts of open questions. There will always be potential for election fraud, but we need to have confidence that it is sufficiently small that it can tip only the tightest of races. Right now I don't think we have that.
Not really. I mean anyone who plays Pokémon Go (kid does) knows as soon as you speed up in a car the app asks you if you are the passenger and you have to click ok to continue.
Thus creating an additional distraction for the driver, who now needs to look at his phone to find and tap the "I'm a passenger" button.
Does it let you say Crackers or Honkeys? If so, then yes, it's biased.
Are those words common in GNAA crapfloods? And even if they are, if blocking one word is enough to stop/reduce it and blocking more wouldn't help, then why bother?
I hadn't realized that was in place.
It's because it is a new(ish) addition.
Not even a year ago, slashdotters were still considered to be able to practice some common decency. So, no. It ain't the GNAA trolls.
Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise.
BTW... Apparently Slashdot also has a left-leaning bias. Wont' let me say "Nig.ers" with two 'g's. Remember that as you read all the other posts here. This is a left-leaning site.
I hadn't realized that was in place. However, it's not so much evidence of left leaning or PC as it is a simple and obvious reaction to a long-standing category of slashdot trolls (https://encyclopediadramatica.se/GNAA).
In the literal sense, they are retarded compared to children of similar age 40 years ago. Their grammar and word usage is worse, their punctuation is worse. Their grasp of mathematics is worse. Their knowledge of history is worse. Their cognizance of current events is worse.
No wonder they are susceptible to propaganda for the stupid. They are in fact the ignorant and stupid, relative to their parents and grandparents.
Cite? You've made a lot of claims, but offered zero evidence.
That is indeed part of the problem. Until people care to pay for secure software, they won't have it.
One difference between the civil and software engineering examples that strikes me is that the civil engineer only has to ensure that the building never falls down due to natural and expected forces. If someone sets off a large truck bomb in the basement, the building *will* fall down, and everyone understands that's not the civil engineer's fault because that attack was outside of the normal and accepted design parameters.
That's not to say that we don't defend buildings against truck bombs. We do, but we do it with other mechanisms. We have regulations that attempt to restrict the availability of explosives. We have law enforcement and court systems that attempt to deter people from blowing up buildings by threatening them with punishment if they do. In some cases, for buildings that seem to be at particularly high risk, we apply various other security measures to control what vehicles can be driven into the basement, and by whom. We also have infrastructure in place that attempts to monitor whether or not some individuals or groups might be interested in trying to blow up a specific building, and devise and implement countermeasures dynamically as needed.
In the case of software, the responsibility of software engineers is not nearly as clear as it is for civil engineers. Largely this is because software engineering is still a very young profession as compared to civil engineering, and it's still evolving rapidly. In some cases, the tools and techniques used by attackers didn't even exist when the software was written. In most cases, the tools and techniques did exist and were well-known to attackers and security engineers, but not to the people who wrote the software. This indicates a failure of the profession to educate its members... but given the pace at which attack techniques develop and the pace at which the software industry is and has been expanding, it's a failure without obvious solution. Simply applying the same sort of regulation and procedures applied to civil engineering would be massive overkill that would dramatically decrease the ability of the industry to produce software and probably wouldn't solve the problem.
Clearly, we need to create more secure software. The status quo is generally terrible. There are exceptions; there are organizations that do excellent security engineering and we have a good collection of tools and practices for making software that is much better than the norm. On the other hand, no matter what we do during development there will always exist the potential for a truck bomb, an attack which was simply outside the parameters that it made sense to defend against. That means we'll always need additional, "active" defenses.
In the case of the hospital equipment, that means that processes developed for medical equipment not based on software simply don't work. FDA approvals hinder security because they make patching far more expensive and difficult than it should be. We can attempt to build security perimeters around all of the equipment, but experience proves that that's a fool's errand. There's always some way in and once inside the perimeter attackers can run amok.
Our current (but rapidly evolving!) best understanding of how to make software reliable in the face of active attack is a multi-layered strategy. It starts with good software engineering practices that attempt to minimize well-understood risks (buffer overflows, SQL injection, XSS, etc.). Then we try to add firebreaks wherever possible and reasonable, so that compromise of one component doesn't compromise the system as a whole. Such firebreaks mostly consist in locking down any communication channels between components that aren't actually necessary, within processes, between processes, and between devices on networks. We also try to authenticate users and keep them restricted to the functions they can legitimately perform. Then at every level we do regular penetration testing and work to identify and patch vulnerabilities before they can be exploited -- because there will
Two regulations have to be removed for every new one created - while you strangle as regulations pile up.
And if you don't have enough you get the 2008 financial crisis.
More precisely if you have just the wrong amount, you get the 2008 financial crisis. That crisis was caused as much by too much regulation as too little. The core problem was that investors believed that regulators had their backs, but in fact regulators were doing nothing to vet the securitized mortgage industry. In a world without financial industry regulation, investors would have been wary and done the checking themselves but as it was even when analysts raised red flags no one believed them because surely if the mortgage-backed securities were that bad the SEC would have stepped in and either shut them down or at least warned about them.
A completely unregulated financial market has pros and cons, as does heavy regulation, but the worst possible world is the one in which everyone believes regulators are in control when they're not.
(Do not in any way construe this as an endorsement of Trump or his policies. The man is an idiot and a maniac and if he accidentally does anything right it will be in spite of himself.)
It uses loopholes in EU tax laws and does not repatriate non-US income (to avoid additional taxes). Under no change of those laws would it's US tax base increase
I'm not sure if you're including US law in "those laws", but if the US had sufficiently low corporate income tax rates companies whose primary operations are in the US would repatriate a large portion of that money to where they can more easily invest it in growth, which would increase US tax revenues in two ways. First, the US would collect some tax on the repatriated money and second, when the money is spent in the US much of it would get taxed again. Payroll taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, etc.
Thanks for the correction. However, you should be concered that the 100 million figure didn't trigger an automatic "Wait, what?" sanity check, with or without coffee. There's no way that a third of the US population works in fast food.
Also, I don't think fast food operations will be that quick to automate. Several chains have experimented with automating the customer interface, and customers don't like it. They want to order from people. They could still try to automate the kitchen, but that's already done to a large degree, and given the low labor costs I think it'll take a while to replace the remaining people involved in food preparation.
There's another industry of almost equal size, though, that is ripe for automation -- truck driving. It's going to happen, soon. The DoT is already working hard to revise regulations to make it possible, and it makes far too much sense not to happen quickly. Long-distance freeway driving is very easy to automate, and the drivers of big trucks are not only far better paid than fast food workers, they're actually a pretty severe constraint on full utilization of the capital-intensive part of the industry: the trucks. Regulations put strict limits on the hours drivers can drive which leaves $200K trucks idle for hours every day. The fact that the trucks are expensive also means that an incremental capital expenditure of even $100K additional for the self-driving system is easily absorbed. It'd pay for itself in just two years just in avoided labor expenses, but in well under one year when the ability of the truck to continue operating almost continuously 24x7 is factored in.
Further, long-haul trucking can be automated incrementally. If we only allow the trucks to self-drive on the freeway, the industry can station drivers at freeway exits to get on board and do the more-complex in-town driving. Or where that's not feasible, they can even have a driver on board to handle the in-town part -- but pay him less because he "works" less, and still gain the benefit of 24x7 operation. As the self-driving systems get better (or just more trusted), they can incrementally reduce the human-driven miles until it approaches zero.
also paper works when the power it out.
Of course, since all of your work is on a computer you can read the paper but can't actually act on whatever you learn.
I can think of perhaps two occasions in the last six months I've done so, both times for meetings in which I needed everyone to follow along with my presentation.
You don't have projectors (or large monitors) in the conference rooms? I think that's a better solution because it allows you to control which part of the document they're looking at.
We have large monitors that are used for both video conferencing and presentations. Most rooms have dual screens, so you can do both at once; the remote participants appear on one screen while any presentation displays on the other. Of course, remote participants can also see the presentation. If they have only one screen they see the presentation by default though they can override that if they'd rather see who is talking. I'm usually remote so I typically connect to the VC with two devices and show the document in one and the video of the other room(s) in the other.
Actually, documents being presented are often Google docs and it's not uncommon for everyone in the meeting to have edit permission and be making changes during the discussion. This is pure awesomeness for design reviews. By the time the meeting is over all of the discussed changes are already made and the author/presenter doesn't have to spend time updating the design to reflect the results of the discussion.
All of this would be impossible to do as effectively with paper.
No, the population crisis that is coming is one of not *enough* people, rather than too many. Some northern European countries are already facing this issue, especially since their systems for supporting the elderly require that there be plenty of young people working. Denmark, for example, has been running ads for several years now, encouraging couples to do the patriotic thing for their country by having babies.
And this is where it doesn't add up anymore, jobs are going away due to automation... but we don't have enough young people to fill the jobs? You can't simultaneously have too few jobs and too few employees.
It's possible the problems will offset one another.
What if the LTE electronics is on the SoC?
Doesn't matter. The big drain is powering the radios. It takes juice to transmit signals strongly enough that distant towers can pick them up, and to boost weak incoming signals. More efficient local processing doesn't make a significant difference.
Technically correct. The best kind of correct.
I suppose, but "in production" is a pretty important category for people who want to buy a nice new car. It's not a technicality.
Great points, thanks. I find myself being passively racist, actually, but I do actively guard against it.
Our capability to understand our entire planet is FAR greater today than it was in 1016 A.D.
And our knowledge and capabilities are growing orders of magnitude faster today than they were in 1016, and the rate continues to accelerate. The logical conclusion is that the gap between our 3016 knowledge and capabilities and our 2016 knowledge and capabilities will be several orders of magnitude larger than the gap between 2016 and 1016.
That, in turn, means that we're less able to project 1000 years into the future than we were 1000 years ago, not more.
Call me when the overall curve is heading downhill.
<ring>
The developed world is calling you, and the second derivative is already negative globally. The world population growth rate should hit zero around 2050 and then begin declining.
To put it another way, the number of children born per year is already declining and has been for some time. The only reason the population isn't already declining is that the global population is still skewed young. Today's population growth is entirely due to the "filling out" of the age distribution. If you divide the population into five generations, each of 20 years -- so you have the 0-19, 20-39, 40-59, 60-79 and 80-99 groups -- There are about 2B in each of the first two groups, then it drops off rapidly. As the upper groups fill out over the next 35 years or so, you'll end up with roughly 2B per generation times five generations, for a total of about 10B people. Barring significant life extension, that will be the peak. Because the supply flowing into the first generation is slowly declining, the overall population will then begin to decline.
That's if current demographic trends continue, but it's likely that they'll accelerate. The biggest factors in reducing birthrates are (1) female education (2) infant survival rate and (3) wealth. Educated women who have confidence their children will survive and the resources to invest in them tend to have few children and invest heavily in the education and development of those fewer children. Since the trends in the developing world (the areas still producing lots of babies) are toward more education, better availability of medical services and increasing wealth in the developing world, it's likely that the current birth rate numbers will be further reduced.
No, the population crisis that is coming is one of not *enough* people, rather than too many. Some northern European countries are already facing this issue, especially since their systems for supporting the elderly require that there be plenty of young people working. Denmark, for example, has been running ads for several years now, encouraging couples to do the patriotic thing for their country by having babies.
The one thing that might change this is if medical technology progresses to allow the average person to live many decades longer. Add another 2B to the peak population for every 20 years of (universally-available) life extension.
the fasted car
Weird typo there. "fastest", obviously.
But hey, Elon Musk can claim all he wants, that's marketing (ie. damn lies.)
As long as he says it's the fasted car in production, he's telling the truth. The 918 is out of production (only 918 made, in 2014), as is the Rimac Concept On(only 8 made, also in 2013-2014). Also, everything I can find on the Rimac lists 0-60 times of 2.6-2.8 seconds, making it slower.
That he's a wife-beater doesn't make him racist.
Right. That makes him a misogynist, and demonstrates deep lack of character.
That he leads and serves as executive chairman for a racist newspaper doesn't make him racist.
Yes, it does. He is in a position to direct the paper to stop being racist, and doesn't. Further, it was when he took over that it took hard racist turn. He doesn't just passively profit from racism (though that would be bad enough, honestly), he actively directs it.
but none give quotes in his own words that are directly racist. Sure, a few have a tinge or dog whistle, but none are overtly racist. You'd think if it was so obvious, someone would be able to provide a quote.
Assuming that's true, it just means he's careful. The "tinge and dog whistle" approach allows him to speak clearly to his fellow racists but attempts to provide plausible deniability. Though anyone who actually looks will find it implausible.
I don't get why people want to defend someone like Bannon, unless they also are misogynists and racists. And if they are, why don't they just say so rather than trying to claim he's not?
Try thinking about the article itself, put your past post in context, then it does.
I did. Don't see it. My point was that the Chinese are perfectly capable of doublethink; I was making no comment about climate change.
Read this.
I don't see the relevance to my point.