This is not an analogy, and was never meant to be an analogy.
You're comparing your hypothetical metric of travel safety with his metric of energy production safety in order to prove a point about how "data can be misconstrued". https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%20analogy
It's just like airline miles. Very safe by miles flown, but if you have a crash, you're gonna die unless you get really lucky.
Are you suggesting that airline travel is not the safest form? If you need to go somewhere 300 miles away, the plane will get you there with less chance of death. This is statistical fact.
What do we do when the costs are not merely death?
Come up with statistics that take into account whatever other cost you're considering? If you can articulate and categorize these other costs we may be able to objectively compare energy production with the new metric.
You show the exact reason why people do not trust the rabid pro nuc people.
You'll probably never be able to admit this to yourself, but you fit in perfectly with the dumb NIMBY crowd that keeps us from having nice things. You haven't come up with a single coherent argument. I can only hope that somewhere, deep in your subconscious probably, you feel at least a little bit bad about holding back the human race.
I think you're crazy and I can answer your question.
Google makes its money from anonymously connecting you with advertisers. They create a very detailed profile on you based on their tracking data. Then they sell advertisements, expecting the buyer to provide blanket information for the kind of person that they're targeting. Google probably then adds some of its own AI on top of the advertisers' expectations to create more ad clicks. Then you go to a random webpage which asks Google which ad to show you. The advertiser pays Google who gives a smaller amount to the website operator.
Note how Google never has to release any of your information to make money here. I don't think I remember a single article about Google even accidentally leaking private information.
I have a gigabit connection, but I prefer blu-rays for media. Streaming doesn't offer nearly the quality or selection. It's cheaper than signing up for a bunch of different streaming services too, especially if you're willing to wait for the TV stuff.
A monstrosity takes more time and people to build and those people need time to be trained. You can send a new payload every week but if you don't take some time with the first one at least then none of them will actually reach mars. My point is it's diminishing returns trying to pull in a schedule even with gobs more funding. There's a practical limit. This is something Trump should understand by now.
I don't even think it's possible with infinite funding. A lot of people working on each aspect would greatly speed the process, no doubt, but you have to hire and train all those people which takes time (not to mention growing a management structure to handle all the new resources). This shows what kind of business man Trump really is if he doesn't understand that.
FWIW I find your comments amusing and I would agree that jumping to the conclusion of "aliens omg" is inappropriate for slashdot even if it is a more exciting conclusion. Not everyone can tell if it's sensationalist discussion for the purposes of entertainment vs a likely theory.
Even a constant acceleration of just 1g would get you to relativistic speeds during interstellar travel.
Interstellar travel gives you the space and the time, but maintaining 1g of acceleration during all that time would be very difficult. I'm not sure I've even heard of a technology that's been proposed which could do that let alone seen it from something we already have.
To me, "grandfathered" policies should be treated no different than newly proposed ones.
What? I'm starting to suspect you're just trolling now. These "grandfathered" policies are otherwise known as "laws". You did take civics class in high school right?
For instance, hypothetically what if the Republicans grabbed ahold of all 3 branches of govt and passes some new trillion dollar a year boondoggle defense program that drove up the deficit.
That's not hypothetical. It happens every time they control 3 branches of government.
Voters rebel and vote Blue Dog democrats into office who are concerned about spending. Are you saying that if the Republicans refused to budge an inch on reducing any spending in that massive program, Democrats would be in the wrong not to threaten a shutdown over it?
Democrats would be in the wrong to shut down the government over that. It's why they didn't when it literally happened.
I mean the Dems pretty much threatened a shutdown over the Bush tax cuts (with insistence on not cutting the highest marginal tax rate, which increased from 35% to 39.6%). Those tax cuts were "existing policy." I just don't see the difference.
I assume by "pretty much threaten" you mean they didn't actually do anything, but if they did shut down the government after the Bush tax cuts were already law then yes I'd agree they were wrong.
I believe every law should be fair game every change of government at minimum.
That answers my first question.
Otherwise, what's to stop someone from doing exactly what Obama did with ACA by just passing whatever he wants with zero support from the minority party?
Voters. Voters decide who's majority or minority.
What are opposition politicians supposed to do then? Just accept it for eternity?
If they're out of power for eternity then yes, but ideally they would wait and pass a new law that repeals the old one when they get power again.
You're making the same mistake everyone does by conflating cost/spending with budget deficit. ACA will add little to the deficit due to the fact it lumped in a ton of taxes and revenue increases into the bill to offset the spending. However, it will cost 1+ trillion over the next decade. Just because someone passes a law that lumps in revenue increases to offset the spending of said law does not make it "free" to taxpayers. Just because payroll taxes cover Social Security for instance doesn't mean we're not spending/losing that money from our paychecks.
I see your point here. I think I'm just conditioned to hearing conservatives blame the national debt on democrats. As much as conservatives scream about tax and spend democrats at least they do the taxing as well as the spending. The republicans are fine with running up the deficit. That's kind of off topic though.
The wall on the other hand is a fixed cost, and a low one at that.
Not going to argue with that. My original post pointed out that democrats should trade the wall for other "fixed but low cost" programs.
Obama's win was more a mandate against the former administration moreso than for his own. A large chunk of voters were voting against the former republican neocons who also added to the deficit rather than for Obama's policies. The assumption of a "mandate" in support of his policies was misplaced. Both ACA (https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/sep/26/newt-gingrich/obamacare-has-never-been-favored-majority-american/) and single payer (https://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2014/may/14/ralph-nader/70-years-most-americans-have-supported-single-paye/) did not have broad support from Americans. But Obama forced through the unpopular bill anyway because he wanted the political
You do realize the difference between "wanting some wild pet project" and "funding government" is literally a matter of perspective and nothing more? To the conservatives, maybe ACA is the "wild pet project" and the wall is border security money that is being blocked? In the end, it's literally nothing more than a difference of opinion on where and how to spend money.
It's not just a difference of opinion, it's an objective difference in strategy. One undermines the traditional process and one doesn't. The ACA was a law passed by congress and signed by the president. Trump is shutting down the government to get something new as opposed to keep what was existing. That's really the crux of it. If he wants the wall he should get it passed in congress as part of a border security bill (the ACA was its own bill entirely). Republicans had control of the house, senate, and president just like democrats when they passed the ACA. Are you saying every law should be up for debate and re-passed every year when the funding is due? If you thought congress couldn't get anything done now...
The only variant here is that in 2011, Republicans wanted spending cuts to offset all the spending done in 2009-2010 that ran up the deficit, and Obama was insisting on unlimited debt ceiling hikes and more tax hikes instead so that he could continue to spend more. So you could effectively say he already got his pet projects when he controlled all 3 branches of govt. Then, he held the govt hostage in 2011 until the Republicans agreed to pay for it.
I'll assume you meant 2013 since in 2011 they just wanted short term spending bills. In 2013 they wanted to repeal the ACA entirely on principle. The CBO at the time was predicting deficit reductions from the ACA. Regardless, republicans never actually care about the deficit unless it happens to help their current argument. See the recent tax breaks and military spending increases.
"Compromise" and "reasonableness" is perspective only -- for instance, Obamacare will cost the taxpayers 1.34 trillion over the next decade per the CBO.
Trump is asking for 5 billion, once, for a wall. Yet you seem to find it perfectly reasonable that Obama would hold the govt hostage to resist and all changes in ACA whereas Trump is not reasonable to defend his own campaign promise for far less cost to the people.
You can't compare obama defending the ACA to trump asking for a wall. It's objectively unreasonable to expect obama to just let the law die after such a hard win. Trump only won an election. Getting what you want is actually harder than that.
He wasn't waiting for the republicans to give in on something. He didn't want to sign a short-term measure because he wanted to pressure congress to come up with an actual spending bill instead of a long series of temporary ones that take the pressure off. It's called leadership.
The second time was in 2013 on ACA
This was over the republicans wanting to delay/defund obamacare (again). They tried to do this about a thousand times in various ways. Of course obama wasn't going to sign that.
The third time was in 2015 on spending again
Let's quote some less biasedsources. This impasse was over the more conservative wing trying to defund planned parenthood.
Obama never refused to sign a spending bill because he wanted some wild pet project.
It's not necessarily just Never Trump policy. There's no real evidence that it will do any good and only a few democrats have been recorded saying it was a good idea. Chuck Schumer is not the democratic party.
Aside from that, even if the democrats could get on board with a wall, right now when the government is shut down is not the time to negotiate it. Trump picked this moment (to the surprise of McConnell even) because he thought it would give him leverage and the democrats are understandably disgusted by this tactic.
Are you implying that the republicans shouldn't compromise on "the objectively stupid wall" because a few democrats said they liked the idea years ago?
Senate democrats had no responsibility to sign a bill they were about to just write themselves anyway. If house democrats passed a bill that the senate wouldn't agree to you might have a point, but since the senate agreed it's now being held up by the president. So yes, Trump (republican) could forget about the objectively stupid wall, or the senate (republican) could have forced a resolution much earlier in the process before it got to this point. Are you saying it's democrats that are responsible for not just agreeing to whatever the hell trump wants? They would get nothing in return. That's not how congress works.
That deal was rejected because they knew they were going to take the house in January. Of course senate democrats aren't going to sign off on a republican bill when they can write their own tomorrow. So they took the house, *completed* a deal with senate republicans and *now* trump is saying he won't sign anything that doesn't have money for a wall. He should have communicated that to his leadership in the senate like 2 months ago.
I've seen the quotes from Obama and Clinton regarding a wall. Neither of them are in office right now.
I wouldn't go that far. They see this as a deal that was completed and then turned upside down at the last minute for a stupid wall. It's fair for them to just say "no, we already had a deal". Fair as that stance is, I think they should turn it into a new opportunity.
They should pay for the wall and get something back for it. The master negotiator has tied the credibility of the entire republican party to this wall, which means he's not going to just give up. It also means he (and other republicans) are probably willing to give in on other things they otherwise wouldn't. Offer the measly $5 billion and get an increase in minimum wage or something else Trump would never otherwise sign. What he's asking for isn't even nearly what he'll need to actually complete the wall either, so there's plenty of opportunity in the future to bargain for more. This is a huge gift to the democratic agenda.
It's not taxation, it's effectively government supported rent seeking from the corporations that own the cameras. Whether or not I speed on public roads shouldn't determine the amount of corporate welfare they receive.
Suppressing gene expression has no affect on whether genes get inherited and selected for or against.
Doesn't it? Behavioral changes (for whatever reason) can affect which genes are later inherited. This is what allows a species to adapt to a changing environment.
It's not semantics. We either did or did not have full screen displays two years ago. If we did, then they're adding a notch cutout. If we didn't, then they're just adding more screen in the corners that wasn't there before. In landscape mode you never had that space available in previous phones either.
Slashdot Mirror
This is not an analogy, and was never meant to be an analogy.
You're comparing your hypothetical metric of travel safety with his metric of energy production safety in order to prove a point about how "data can be misconstrued". https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%20analogy
It's just like airline miles. Very safe by miles flown, but if you have a crash, you're gonna die unless you get really lucky.
Are you suggesting that airline travel is not the safest form? If you need to go somewhere 300 miles away, the plane will get you there with less chance of death. This is statistical fact.
What do we do when the costs are not merely death?
Come up with statistics that take into account whatever other cost you're considering? If you can articulate and categorize these other costs we may be able to objectively compare energy production with the new metric.
You show the exact reason why people do not trust the rabid pro nuc people.
You'll probably never be able to admit this to yourself, but you fit in perfectly with the dumb NIMBY crowd that keeps us from having nice things. You haven't come up with a single coherent argument. I can only hope that somewhere, deep in your subconscious probably, you feel at least a little bit bad about holding back the human race.
I think you're crazy and I can answer your question.
Google makes its money from anonymously connecting you with advertisers. They create a very detailed profile on you based on their tracking data. Then they sell advertisements, expecting the buyer to provide blanket information for the kind of person that they're targeting. Google probably then adds some of its own AI on top of the advertisers' expectations to create more ad clicks. Then you go to a random webpage which asks Google which ad to show you. The advertiser pays Google who gives a smaller amount to the website operator.
Note how Google never has to release any of your information to make money here. I don't think I remember a single article about Google even accidentally leaking private information.
I have a gigabit connection, but I prefer blu-rays for media. Streaming doesn't offer nearly the quality or selection. It's cheaper than signing up for a bunch of different streaming services too, especially if you're willing to wait for the TV stuff.
I very much appreciate having daylight to see by in the evenings.
The keyword there is "I". Get up earlier if you want, why does the clock have to change?
A monstrosity takes more time and people to build and those people need time to be trained. You can send a new payload every week but if you don't take some time with the first one at least then none of them will actually reach mars. My point is it's diminishing returns trying to pull in a schedule even with gobs more funding. There's a practical limit. This is something Trump should understand by now.
I don't even think it's possible with infinite funding. A lot of people working on each aspect would greatly speed the process, no doubt, but you have to hire and train all those people which takes time (not to mention growing a management structure to handle all the new resources). This shows what kind of business man Trump really is if he doesn't understand that.
FWIW I find your comments amusing and I would agree that jumping to the conclusion of "aliens omg" is inappropriate for slashdot even if it is a more exciting conclusion. Not everyone can tell if it's sensationalist discussion for the purposes of entertainment vs a likely theory.
Even a constant acceleration of just 1g would get you to relativistic speeds during interstellar travel.
Interstellar travel gives you the space and the time, but maintaining 1g of acceleration during all that time would be very difficult. I'm not sure I've even heard of a technology that's been proposed which could do that let alone seen it from something we already have.
Actually that's not from the phone I guess, technically. But it's an external device manipulating the drivetrain.
Tesla cars are the only ones you can drive remotely from your phone
wrong
To me, "grandfathered" policies should be treated no different than newly proposed ones.
What? I'm starting to suspect you're just trolling now. These "grandfathered" policies are otherwise known as "laws". You did take civics class in high school right?
For instance, hypothetically what if the Republicans grabbed ahold of all 3 branches of govt and passes some new trillion dollar a year boondoggle defense program that drove up the deficit.
That's not hypothetical. It happens every time they control 3 branches of government.
Voters rebel and vote Blue Dog democrats into office who are concerned about spending. Are you saying that if the Republicans refused to budge an inch on reducing any spending in that massive program, Democrats would be in the wrong not to threaten a shutdown over it?
Democrats would be in the wrong to shut down the government over that. It's why they didn't when it literally happened.
I mean the Dems pretty much threatened a shutdown over the Bush tax cuts (with insistence on not cutting the highest marginal tax rate, which increased from 35% to 39.6%). Those tax cuts were "existing policy." I just don't see the difference.
I assume by "pretty much threaten" you mean they didn't actually do anything, but if they did shut down the government after the Bush tax cuts were already law then yes I'd agree they were wrong.
I believe every law should be fair game every change of government at minimum.
That answers my first question.
Otherwise, what's to stop someone from doing exactly what Obama did with ACA by just passing whatever he wants with zero support from the minority party?
Voters. Voters decide who's majority or minority.
What are opposition politicians supposed to do then? Just accept it for eternity?
If they're out of power for eternity then yes, but ideally they would wait and pass a new law that repeals the old one when they get power again.
You're making the same mistake everyone does by conflating cost/spending with budget deficit. ACA will add little to the deficit due to the fact it lumped in a ton of taxes and revenue increases into the bill to offset the spending. However, it will cost 1+ trillion over the next decade. Just because someone passes a law that lumps in revenue increases to offset the spending of said law does not make it "free" to taxpayers. Just because payroll taxes cover Social Security for instance doesn't mean we're not spending/losing that money from our paychecks.
I see your point here. I think I'm just conditioned to hearing conservatives blame the national debt on democrats. As much as conservatives scream about tax and spend democrats at least they do the taxing as well as the spending. The republicans are fine with running up the deficit. That's kind of off topic though.
The wall on the other hand is a fixed cost, and a low one at that.
Not going to argue with that. My original post pointed out that democrats should trade the wall for other "fixed but low cost" programs.
Obama's win was more a mandate against the former administration moreso than for his own. A large chunk of voters were voting against the former republican neocons who also added to the deficit rather than for Obama's policies. The assumption of a "mandate" in support of his policies was misplaced. Both ACA (https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/sep/26/newt-gingrich/obamacare-has-never-been-favored-majority-american/) and single payer (https://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2014/may/14/ralph-nader/70-years-most-americans-have-supported-single-paye/) did not have broad support from Americans. But Obama forced through the unpopular bill anyway because he wanted the political
You do realize the difference between "wanting some wild pet project" and "funding government" is literally a matter of perspective and nothing more? To the conservatives, maybe ACA is the "wild pet project" and the wall is border security money that is being blocked? In the end, it's literally nothing more than a difference of opinion on where and how to spend money.
It's not just a difference of opinion, it's an objective difference in strategy. One undermines the traditional process and one doesn't. The ACA was a law passed by congress and signed by the president. Trump is shutting down the government to get something new as opposed to keep what was existing. That's really the crux of it. If he wants the wall he should get it passed in congress as part of a border security bill (the ACA was its own bill entirely). Republicans had control of the house, senate, and president just like democrats when they passed the ACA. Are you saying every law should be up for debate and re-passed every year when the funding is due? If you thought congress couldn't get anything done now...
The only variant here is that in 2011, Republicans wanted spending cuts to offset all the spending done in 2009-2010 that ran up the deficit, and Obama was insisting on unlimited debt ceiling hikes and more tax hikes instead so that he could continue to spend more. So you could effectively say he already got his pet projects when he controlled all 3 branches of govt. Then, he held the govt hostage in 2011 until the Republicans agreed to pay for it.
I'll assume you meant 2013 since in 2011 they just wanted short term spending bills. In 2013 they wanted to repeal the ACA entirely on principle. The CBO at the time was predicting deficit reductions from the ACA. Regardless, republicans never actually care about the deficit unless it happens to help their current argument. See the recent tax breaks and military spending increases.
"Compromise" and "reasonableness" is perspective only -- for instance, Obamacare will cost the taxpayers 1.34 trillion over the next decade per the CBO.
Source? I think you're off by a trillion or so.
Trump is asking for 5 billion, once, for a wall. Yet you seem to find it perfectly reasonable that Obama would hold the govt hostage to resist and all changes in ACA whereas Trump is not reasonable to defend his own campaign promise for far less cost to the people.
You can't compare obama defending the ACA to trump asking for a wall. It's objectively unreasonable to expect obama to just let the law die after such a hard win. Trump only won an election. Getting what you want is actually harder than that.
The first time was in 2011
He wasn't waiting for the republicans to give in on something. He didn't want to sign a short-term measure because he wanted to pressure congress to come up with an actual spending bill instead of a long series of temporary ones that take the pressure off. It's called leadership.
The second time was in 2013 on ACA
This was over the republicans wanting to delay/defund obamacare (again). They tried to do this about a thousand times in various ways. Of course obama wasn't going to sign that.
The third time was in 2015 on spending again
Let's quote some less biased sources. This impasse was over the more conservative wing trying to defund planned parenthood.
Obama never refused to sign a spending bill because he wanted some wild pet project.
It's not necessarily just Never Trump policy. There's no real evidence that it will do any good and only a few democrats have been recorded saying it was a good idea. Chuck Schumer is not the democratic party.
Aside from that, even if the democrats could get on board with a wall, right now when the government is shut down is not the time to negotiate it. Trump picked this moment (to the surprise of McConnell even) because he thought it would give him leverage and the democrats are understandably disgusted by this tactic.
Are you implying that the republicans shouldn't compromise on "the objectively stupid wall" because a few democrats said they liked the idea years ago?
Senate democrats had no responsibility to sign a bill they were about to just write themselves anyway. If house democrats passed a bill that the senate wouldn't agree to you might have a point, but since the senate agreed it's now being held up by the president. So yes, Trump (republican) could forget about the objectively stupid wall, or the senate (republican) could have forced a resolution much earlier in the process before it got to this point. Are you saying it's democrats that are responsible for not just agreeing to whatever the hell trump wants? They would get nothing in return. That's not how congress works.
That deal was rejected because they knew they were going to take the house in January. Of course senate democrats aren't going to sign off on a republican bill when they can write their own tomorrow. So they took the house, *completed* a deal with senate republicans and *now* trump is saying he won't sign anything that doesn't have money for a wall. He should have communicated that to his leadership in the senate like 2 months ago.
I've seen the quotes from Obama and Clinton regarding a wall. Neither of them are in office right now.
I wouldn't go that far. They see this as a deal that was completed and then turned upside down at the last minute for a stupid wall. It's fair for them to just say "no, we already had a deal". Fair as that stance is, I think they should turn it into a new opportunity.
They should pay for the wall and get something back for it. The master negotiator has tied the credibility of the entire republican party to this wall, which means he's not going to just give up. It also means he (and other republicans) are probably willing to give in on other things they otherwise wouldn't. Offer the measly $5 billion and get an increase in minimum wage or something else Trump would never otherwise sign. What he's asking for isn't even nearly what he'll need to actually complete the wall either, so there's plenty of opportunity in the future to bargain for more. This is a huge gift to the democratic agenda.
It's not taxation, it's effectively government supported rent seeking from the corporations that own the cameras. Whether or not I speed on public roads shouldn't determine the amount of corporate welfare they receive.
To clarify, this was meant in the context of choosing mates, not that behavior would physically affect gene inheritance.
Suppressing gene expression has no affect on whether genes get inherited and selected for or against.
Doesn't it? Behavioral changes (for whatever reason) can affect which genes are later inherited. This is what allows a species to adapt to a changing environment.
Yes, really. The page you linked to is basically advertising a 50% success rate (and at what performance degradation).
It's not semantics. We either did or did not have full screen displays two years ago. If we did, then they're adding a notch cutout. If we didn't, then they're just adding more screen in the corners that wasn't there before. In landscape mode you never had that space available in previous phones either.
Never Settle.