But this school has mostly low-income students who don't have the sort of high-tech resources at home that we all take for granted
If you are as qualified as to be able to affect a library's decisions, why don't you spend more time working — earn the money to buy your charges some low-cost earlier-generation tablets? Walmart lists a 7" Android tablet for $65 and you may be able to get an even better deal buying in bulk (or buying last year's cheapest). Just be sure, each family buys their own, rather than have them collectively-owned (and thus neglected).
This, really, is a solved problem and may even fit the library's budget — the budget you were going to spend on something else instead.
By turning your whole library for the poorest visitors, you are making it even more likely, that normal people will stay away...
Contrary to the write-up, civilization has not been using oil (nor gas) very much for centuries. Man has sailed with, well, sails for thousands of years.
However, when the opportunity arose, using Sun's concentrated energy proved rather attractive to all. And so it will remain until we find a way to stuff the comparable amounts of energy per unit of volume as the "fossil fuels" contain.
lacks a viable legal foundation under Section 215, implicates constitutional concerns under the First and Fourth Amendments, raises serious threats to privacy and civil liberties as a policy matter, and has shown only limited value As a result, the board recommends that the government end the program.
A thing like this ought to be legal or illegal regardless of whether it is useful or not... So, though I'm glad they've reached this conclusion, I'm hesitant to rejoice — if these are the standards to apply, we may have something horribly invasive coming in the future, which will survive legal scrutiny because it will be useful, even if otherwise illegal...
Better allow an occasional exposure of children to pornography — which, obviously, happens anyway — than arm oppressors world-wide with means to block people in this manner.
No, I don't think, making such programs should be banned. But we, Americans, ought to stop buying it for our homes and libraries...
For the position in the U.S. where other residents of the U.S. are paid $60,000 per year, it is not so good.
If the man accepted the offer, then it was good. If he did not, then it was not — and Oracle made a mistake. There is no illegality here — and there wouldn't even have been an allegation of one, had they phrased it differently.
There is no set price for anything — everything (including an employee's labor) costs, what people are willing to pay for it.
In which case, why was the "for an Indian" phrase even mentioned, unless to single them out as opposed to other persons?
The "Indian" was a reference to his country of origin — and its notorious poverty — rather than his race. I thought, this is perfectly clear, if, indeed, this is what really was said to begin with. You can replace "Indian" with "Nigerian", or "Russian", or "Chinese" in this context just as well.
It certainly is good money for someone — whatever their race — from India, where that same person was earning much less...
When Spandow protested, he was himself summarily fired
Unless Mr. Spandow's own dismissal was due to racism or some other illegal discrimination against him, I doubt, the suit will be found to have much merit. Bad publicity for Oracle — maybe. But nothing worse. Oh, and a much of folks in India thinking, that he is a spoiled idiot...
Scratch a global warming denier and underneath you'll find the laissez faire capitalist.
As may be... Such capitalists, however, are responsible for every modern convenience (flush toilet, rail- and air-travel, telephone, computers, personal automobile, toilet paper) — if not its outright invention, then certainly its wide adoption. Che guevarras of the world, on the other hand, are responsible for nothing but millions of dead and economic misery for survivors, as well as deprivation of human rights for same. So, yes, I'll take a capitalist (preferably laissez faire) over a communist every day.
But do you think, capitalists have some spare planet nearby, to which they plan to escape once Earth is no longer habitable? Or do you think, they are too stupid to care — for themselves and their offspring? Nope, they wouldn't be making millions of dollars — pushing themselves up into that hated "1%" — if they were... So, maybe, you ought to give them a benefit of the doubt, huh?
consensus of climate scientists
That oft-repeated canard is simply a lie. There is no "consensus"... If there was, there wouldn't be a need to keep repeating, that there is.
The simple fact is, all of the theories put forth by the scientists comprising that (rather incomplete) "consensus", predicted a much higher temperature rise, than is being observed for the last 15-20 years... We are putting just as much (if not more) CO2 into the atmosphere, but the temperatures aren't rising as predicted. Ergo, the effect of the CO2 emissions must've been overestimated, to say the least.
Quite clearly, you don't quite understand the climate theories either. But, possessing a Che Guevara T-shirt yourself, you find the theory quite convenient and choose to believe it (and defend it) the way Pascal chose to believe in God: even if there is no Global Warming to speak of, destroying Capitalism is a worthy goal in itself.
Then be a mensch and say what you mean, its patenly obvious that almost everyone in this Global Warming religion scheme has ulterior motives
The primary motif seems to be the same one... Scratch a Global Warming propagandist, and you'll find a Che Guevara T-shirt underneath. Whatever impedes Capitalism and allows the glorious Collective to smite an insolent Individual is good, and no lie is too big to serve as means to that noble end.
And the social puzzles are easy to solve — start at school (which is, thankfully, public) and the next generation will have no doubts. Even if they are aware of any such doubts among their ancestors, the only reactions will be eye-rolling and other ridicule...
We know for sure that the added carbon in the atmosphere does add pollution
We do? How? And what "carbon" do you mean? Soot? Sure, but we don't have very much around here — and it has little to do with global warming. CO — the monoxide? It is outright poisonous, but, thankfully, we don't have much of that (because it is rather short-lived in the atmosphere). CO2 — the dioxide? Not a poison — and plants thrive on it.
and make it more difficult to breath
Pollution in general does make it more difficult to breath, yes, but modern equipment produces very little of it. The skies of Los Angeles and other big cities used to be very polluted, but not any more (though Chinese cities are pretty bad these days).
and stop taxing good things (like trade and income).
No disagreement here. But let's stay on topic of the global warming, errr, no, Climate Change. (Or is it "Extreme Climate" nowadays?)
All those articles really say is that the atmosphere may not be as sensitive to CO2 as previously thought
Yes. And that "only" puts the existing theories — than man's CO2 emissions are responsible for the warming — on their heads.
So, maybe, there is no need to tax/ban certain fuels and activities, after all? And thus no need for further expansion of governments (to enforce the bans) and merging of sovereign governments into an unelected "world-government" body?
Global warming propagandists would take any support — whether it comes from a heatwave-induced swing or real understanding of their theories.
Meanwhile, the inconvenient truth that those theories aren't really explaining the available facts, is explained only by lack of funding and failure to communicate...
The argument is that people who make the wrong choices did so freely, and deserve to go hungry or die.
The argument is: "Where does it stop?" For example, having adequate shelter closely follows adequate nutrition in importance for health. If, indeed, the government is responsible for citizenry's health, then not only food ought to be provided by the government, but housing too.
Next comes entertainment — these same doctors would argue, that the costs of treating various boredom-induced mental problems will decrease if the government provides quality entertainment for the masses (toiling and otherwise). Low quality entertainment like Rush Limbaugh (or the entire Fox conglomerate) would have to go the way "inadequate" health plans have already gone — good riddance...
With healthcare, housing, food, and entertainment provided by the government, taxes would have to rise, of course — to, pretty much, 100%. But that's Ok, because everything will be provided for free by the government — so, what would one need money for?
Some AC over there is arguing, that inflation is good. Sorry, it is not. That argument is bogus to the extreme... If I have $100 today, I should be able to buy the same amount of bread, milk, or fuel for my car ten years from now — without doing anything with the money. Now, if I did something — like invested or even simply deposited to a savings account — it should grow. But simply holding it in a jar, the value of that $100 ought to remain the same. Unfortunately, that's not the case... And while the exact reasons can be "complex", the underlying problem is the same: the government can print money without limit — as much as may be needed to satisfy a political agenda.
Before the fiat money, American government had to be bold and explicit about confiscating citizens' savings. Today they are so subtle about it, people are telling each other, how good an idea it is...
The problem is that the cheapest 1brs in SF cost $2800/month.
How is it a Google's problem — or a Google's fault? Are you going to argue, a corporation is "evil" because it pays its employees high wages — which leads to them being able to pay higher rents?
kids in mission who turn a vibrant ethnic neighborhood into Sharon Green in palo alto.
And there is nothing wrong with it — those "kids" still have to live somewhere. Are you going to restrict their freedom — for the dubious goal of preserving "a vibrant ethnic neighborhood"?
Our enemies may claim disdain for death, but — with our technology — we can beat them to pulp despite being soft-bellied wussies. And some of us aren't quite so soft-bellied either...
Slashdot Mirror
If you are as qualified as to be able to affect a library's decisions, why don't you spend more time working — earn the money to buy your charges some low-cost earlier-generation tablets? Walmart lists a 7" Android tablet for $65 and you may be able to get an even better deal buying in bulk (or buying last year's cheapest). Just be sure, each family buys their own, rather than have them collectively-owned (and thus neglected).
This, really, is a solved problem and may even fit the library's budget — the budget you were going to spend on something else instead.
By turning your whole library for the poorest visitors, you are making it even more likely, that normal people will stay away...
Contrary to the write-up, civilization has not been using oil (nor gas) very much for centuries. Man has sailed with, well, sails for thousands of years.
However, when the opportunity arose, using Sun's concentrated energy proved rather attractive to all. And so it will remain until we find a way to stuff the comparable amounts of energy per unit of volume as the "fossil fuels" contain.
Imagine a solar-powered aircraft carrier... Yes, you can!
A thing like this ought to be legal or illegal regardless of whether it is useful or not... So, though I'm glad they've reached this conclusion, I'm hesitant to rejoice — if these are the standards to apply, we may have something horribly invasive coming in the future, which will survive legal scrutiny because it will be useful, even if otherwise illegal...
Better allow an occasional exposure of children to pornography — which, obviously, happens anyway — than arm oppressors world-wide with means to block people in this manner.
No, I don't think, making such programs should be banned. But we, Americans, ought to stop buying it for our homes and libraries...
If the man accepted the offer, then it was good. If he did not, then it was not — and Oracle made a mistake. There is no illegality here — and there wouldn't even have been an allegation of one, had they phrased it differently.
There is no set price for anything — everything (including an employee's labor) costs, what people are willing to pay for it.
The "Indian" was a reference to his country of origin — and its notorious poverty — rather than his race. I thought, this is perfectly clear, if, indeed, this is what really was said to begin with. You can replace "Indian" with "Nigerian", or "Russian", or "Chinese" in this context just as well.
It certainly is good money for someone — whatever their race — from India, where that same person was earning much less...
Unless Mr. Spandow's own dismissal was due to racism or some other illegal discrimination against him, I doubt, the suit will be found to have much merit. Bad publicity for Oracle — maybe. But nothing worse. Oh, and a much of folks in India thinking, that he is a spoiled idiot...
This was a great opportunity for you to offer a better source... But you chose not to avail yourself of it. I wonder, why...
As may be... Such capitalists, however, are responsible for every modern convenience (flush toilet, rail- and air-travel, telephone, computers, personal automobile, toilet paper) — if not its outright invention, then certainly its wide adoption. Che guevarras of the world, on the other hand, are responsible for nothing but millions of dead and economic misery for survivors, as well as deprivation of human rights for same. So, yes, I'll take a capitalist (preferably laissez faire) over a communist every day.
But do you think, capitalists have some spare planet nearby, to which they plan to escape once Earth is no longer habitable? Or do you think, they are too stupid to care — for themselves and their offspring? Nope, they wouldn't be making millions of dollars — pushing themselves up into that hated "1%" — if they were... So, maybe, you ought to give them a benefit of the doubt, huh?
That oft-repeated canard is simply a lie. There is no "consensus"... If there was, there wouldn't be a need to keep repeating, that there is.
The simple fact is, all of the theories put forth by the scientists comprising that (rather incomplete) "consensus", predicted a much higher temperature rise, than is being observed for the last 15-20 years... We are putting just as much (if not more) CO2 into the atmosphere, but the temperatures aren't rising as predicted. Ergo, the effect of the CO2 emissions must've been overestimated, to say the least.
Quite clearly, you don't quite understand the climate theories either. But, possessing a Che Guevara T-shirt yourself, you find the theory quite convenient and choose to believe it (and defend it) the way Pascal chose to believe in God: even if there is no Global Warming to speak of, destroying Capitalism is a worthy goal in itself.
Yes. And that "only" puts the existing theories â" than man's CO2 emissions are responsible for the warming â" on their heads.
It does nothing of the sort.
It does too!
Sensors-shmensors! I want to by some of their shares... Too bad, they don't seem to be publicly traded (yet?)...
The primary motif seems to be the same one... Scratch a Global Warming propagandist, and you'll find a Che Guevara T-shirt underneath. Whatever impedes Capitalism and allows the glorious Collective to smite an insolent Individual is good, and no lie is too big to serve as means to that noble end.
And the social puzzles are easy to solve — start at school (which is, thankfully, public) and the next generation will have no doubts. Even if they are aware of any such doubts among their ancestors, the only reactions will be eye-rolling and other ridicule...
We do? How? And what "carbon" do you mean? Soot? Sure, but we don't have very much around here — and it has little to do with global warming. CO — the monoxide? It is outright poisonous, but, thankfully, we don't have much of that (because it is rather short-lived in the atmosphere). CO2 — the dioxide? Not a poison — and plants thrive on it.
Pollution in general does make it more difficult to breath, yes, but modern equipment produces very little of it. The skies of Los Angeles and other big cities used to be very polluted, but not any more (though Chinese cities are pretty bad these days).
No disagreement here. But let's stay on topic of the global warming, errr, no, Climate Change. (Or is it "Extreme Climate" nowadays?)
Yes, when a theory predicts something, that facts do not confirm, the theory is considered disproved.
It might. But we have no theory explaining the rise — not a theory, that is confirmed by the observable facts.
Darling, learn to behave among adults — or you'll be posting as AC forever...
Yes. And that "only" puts the existing theories — than man's CO2 emissions are responsible for the warming — on their heads.
So, maybe, there is no need to tax/ban certain fuels and activities, after all? And thus no need for further expansion of governments (to enforce the bans) and merging of sovereign governments into an unelected "world-government" body?
Global warming propagandists would take any support — whether it comes from a heatwave-induced swing or real understanding of their theories.
Meanwhile, the inconvenient truth that those theories aren't really explaining the available facts , is explained only by lack of funding and failure to communicate...
The argument is: "Where does it stop?" For example, having adequate shelter closely follows adequate nutrition in importance for health. If, indeed, the government is responsible for citizenry's health, then not only food ought to be provided by the government, but housing too.
Next comes entertainment — these same doctors would argue, that the costs of treating various boredom-induced mental problems will decrease if the government provides quality entertainment for the masses (toiling and otherwise). Low quality entertainment like Rush Limbaugh (or the entire Fox conglomerate) would have to go the way "inadequate" health plans have already gone — good riddance...
With healthcare, housing, food, and entertainment provided by the government, taxes would have to rise, of course — to, pretty much, 100%. But that's Ok, because everything will be provided for free by the government — so, what would one need money for?
Before we know it, we'll have the same deal slaves had on plantations... Silly little people didn't like it, but we will, will we not?
72% of Black children are growing up in single-parenthood families. The rate for all races is only 25%.
Are you suggesting, abortion and birth control are less funded for Blacks? Or that the Blacks are buying a different kind of health insurance?
Some AC over there is arguing, that inflation is good. Sorry, it is not. That argument is bogus to the extreme... If I have $100 today, I should be able to buy the same amount of bread, milk, or fuel for my car ten years from now — without doing anything with the money. Now, if I did something — like invested or even simply deposited to a savings account — it should grow. But simply holding it in a jar, the value of that $100 ought to remain the same. Unfortunately, that's not the case... And while the exact reasons can be "complex", the underlying problem is the same: the government can print money without limit — as much as may be needed to satisfy a political agenda.
Before the fiat money, American government had to be bold and explicit about confiscating citizens' savings. Today they are so subtle about it, people are telling each other, how good an idea it is...
How is it a Google's problem — or a Google's fault? Are you going to argue, a corporation is "evil" because it pays its employees high wages — which leads to them being able to pay higher rents?
And there is nothing wrong with it — those "kids" still have to live somewhere. Are you going to restrict their freedom — for the dubious goal of preserving "a vibrant ethnic neighborhood"?
Why would it be worse, than the traditional fiat-money systems? Where the government prints — and spends — melting out people's savings...
Our enemies may claim disdain for death, but — with our technology — we can beat them to pulp despite being soft-bellied wussies. And some of us aren't quite so soft-bellied either...
Yes, that's what I suspect. And getting the result of the mining off the asteroid is also easier, than getting same off the Moon.
Discarding irrelevant facts is a good thing — and a good sign for a discussion.