The people most likely to be interested in a triple-screen laptop are people who hang out on tech forums like this one, not people reading TMZ. Guess which places are reporting this story the most.
I completely disagree. I haven't seen this particular laptop, but conventional flat-screen monitors are not that small, because of the built-in stands and cases and all. Shipping 2 of these means now you have to lug around two rather large boxes, which have the monitors, their stands, their cables and power supplies, plus styrofoam to protect them. Setting it up will be a big PITA too: you'll need a power strip, you'll have to plug in a bunch of cables, set up the stands, etc., Conceivably, with a 3-screen laptop, you just have to lug around an extra-thick laptop, and then setting it up means just unfolding the displays and you're done. If you really want 3 screens and don't mind a bulky laptop, this is far, far more convenient. I could definitely see some people using this for business purposes where you need a serious machine with lots of monitor space, and need to be able to transport it from job site to job site where there won't already be monitors (with docking stations) you can plug into. Admittedly, it does seem to be a somewhat limited market, but that's OK; we have lots of cars which are made for very limited markets too and they do OK.
That's why that Onion article was so funny, in retrospect: at the time the article came out, Gillette wasn't yet making 5-bladed razors, I think they were only up to 4. Then, sometime after the satirical Onion article, they really did come out with 5-bladed razors, making the article now ironic (if I'm using my literary terms correctly; I'm an engineer, dammit, not a liberal arts major!).
It's a little bit like Arnold's 1986 movie "The Running Man". At the time, it was a not-so-serious and fairly humorous dystopian sci-fi action movie. Little did we know just how accurate it would be. (Check out, for instance, the paramilitary police in the movie, not to mention the foretelling of reality TV.)
Submitting a fraudulant report to law enforcement to consume valuable resources is not something that is "perfectly acceptable" no matter what legal wrapper (read: business) you want to excuse it with.
Wrong. In a corrupt country, it absolutely is "perfectly acceptable". If you can do a thing and legally get away with it because the legal system in that country is corrupt or broken, then it by definition is "perfectly acceptable". And if you disagree, why should I take the word of some random person on the internet over that of the actual legal authorities in a place?
No, it's not. Maybe in the "plenty of countries" you refer to it is, but here in the US it's not. The only way a highly skilled professional here can be held liable for something is if it's actually criminally negligent, and we're not talking about that here, we're talking about blocking ICMP traffic on a corporate intranet. Finally, in this specific example, we're not even doing what you say (simply following the manager's orders without raising concerns): in this example, someone DID raise concerns (by sending her a link to Wikipedia). It's at that point when I think it's uncalled for to go to heroic lengths to change the manager's mind, because it's simply too dangerous to your job; after she deems Wikipedia to be "untrustworthy" I'd just get clarification that that's really what she wants done and I'd do it, with emails stating that this is her decision and any consequences are her problem, not mine, so when the CEO hears about it he'll blame her. At the same time, I'd start looking for a new job because any place with an upper manager this incompetent isn't going to last long.
aaaand this is how western society rotts to the point of collapse.
Yep. But doing the right thing isn't going to fix this, it's just going to get you in trouble. It's up to our leaders to fix this kind of stuff, but they're not doing it, and we're happily choosing the worst leaders possible, so it's really hopeless. Best to just keep your head down and look for a convenient exit when things get bad enough, and set yourself up to get out when the time is right.
You really have to do some serious analysis on the conditions that create these ridiculous situation because this is a bad state of affairs.
Yes, it would be really interesting to see someone write up a good academic analysis of this. It's probably hard to do though, without the lens of history and time. Hindsight is 20/20 and all that.
Reporting "security issues" just makes people in power look bad, so it makes perfect sense that it would be strongly discouraged in such ways (fired, sued, arrested).
The simple thing to do: do not EVER report any security issues you come across. It's not going to benefit you in any way, and is quite likely to harm you greatly. Just forget you saw anything and don't say anything to anyone. If this means your company is likely to get hacked so badly that they're going to go under, then they were already circling the drain, so you should just start looking for a new gig.
Here's how you should actually handle people who report security issues:
1) If you're an IT director and it's a company employee who reported it, you need to inform the upper management that you have a possible hacker in the company, and get his ass fired.
2) If you work in a company and someone in the general public reported it, you need to notify your legal department so they can file a lawsuit against the person for defamation.
3) If you're in government and this was reported by someone in the general public of your country, you need to notify law enforcement so they'll be arrested for hacking and thrown in prison.
Only hackers would care about "security issues", and if that information becomes public, it will just help other hackers, so any such people need to be dealt with, extremely harshly. If you disagree, then you obviously are not in a position of power in the US.
I didn't read TFA, but I wonder if 100Kwh is really accurate, or are they estimating a 300 mile range from a vehicle much smaller and lighter than a Tesla S? Teslas are not very efficient cars: they're heavy and have wide tires, and are made for higher performance rather than ultimate energy efficiency. Making them the size of a Leaf, with some low rolling-resistance tires (which of course have terrible cornering performance) should significantly reduce the battery capacity needed for that range.
Anyway, the cable and connectors shouldn't be *that* ridiculous, if you have a high voltage (enabling your 300A option). A typical dryer connector I believe has a 50A capacity, and there's industrial connectors out there with a lot more. These cables shouldn't be much more unwieldy than a typical gas-station hose that everyone uses to fill up their car.
No, Spanish is correct, though putting French in here would also be correct. The French founded the city in 1718, but it went to Spain in 1763, then back to France very briefly in 1803 until Napoleon sold it to the US as part of the Louisiana Purchase.
Well it does seem that most powerful societies in history have fallen not due to outsiders, but instead to internal problems. Rome fell mainly due to internal corruption and incompetent leadership. But perhaps complacency in the later generations of Romans had something to do with this rise in corruption.
What are you talking about? FPGAs are more popular than ever these days. Now they've got tons of chips that combine FPGA fabrics with ARM core CPUs. You don't need to have ASICs as your final goal; these chips are cheap enough to use in more specialized applications as-is, giving you ASIC performance and reconfigurability. No, you're not going to see these chips in mass-market consumer products, but in higher-end smaller-volume stuff (like industrial equipment) you will. For instance, take a look inside telecom CO equipment; you'll probably see a bunch of FPGAs in there.
But Verilog is definitely the way to go, not VHDL.
You've probably never met one in RL because you've never talked to them directly about these issues.
I live near the DC area, and a huge number of 20- and 30-something women on the dating sites list "social justice" as a huge passion for them. Some of them go into more detail about some of their beliefs. But hanging out with singles in that age group in group events, I never hear this kind of stuff. Nor do I hear people voicing extreme opinions while I'm out and about in the metro area. Now perhaps the SJWs just don't like the group events I like (outdoor activities like hiking), but I think the real reason is simply that people tend to self-censor a lot when they're in "meatspace", and spout far more extreme stuff when online, where they have a cloak of anonymity. I do it myself in different ways: I'll happily write a somewhat extreme post here on/. at times, mainly just to generate intellectual discussion as a "devil's advocate" stance (plus also my Swift-esque sarcastic posts), whereas I wouldn't bother to do such a thing in RL because people will get mad and either start an argument or practice shunning, because they don't like having their beliefs challenged.
Briefly put, in the "real world" people act "polite" and avoid controversial discussion to avoid conflict. This veneer disappears online. And frequently to horrific effect, as seen in the comments sections of general-population news sites or worse, on the alt-right news sites.
That's why the only FM radio station I listen to is NPR. The music's a lot better too (I do like classic rock, but I get tired of listening to the same 20 songs over and over and over and over). The only problem is when they're doing pledge drives. Luckily, I just keep a USB thumb drive plugged in with my music library which I listen to most of the time.
One manager (who was in way over her head on the technical side but who could play the political games well) wanted us to block ALL ICMP traffic on the network. Her reason for this was "ping is a security risk". Yet, she didn't understand that ICMP is more than just ping. Someone sent her a link to the Wikipedia page on ICMP to explain this and she requested documentation from Cisco or another big name vendor because she didn't trust Wikipedia. This enterprising, and frustrated, individual sent her a link to the RFC for ICMP.
Why would anyone do this? You're just going to risk the manager's ire.
The correct course of action is to simply block ICMP traffic, as the manager says (assuming, of course, that this manager is the one you report directly to; otherwise, only do such a thing if ordered by your direct manager). Then sit back and watch the SHTF. When it inevitably does, you have a good excuse: you were ordered by this manager.
It boggles my mind why people are more prepared to keep paying for bandwidth and the associated problems such as connection dependencies, interstitial ads and increased battery usage, rather than just using local memory to store music.
Because people are lazy and stupid and happy to follow fads.
Sorry, starvation is not a viable answer. The billionaires don't have control of the food supply; that's in the hands of many, many different people: people working the farms (though largely automated), people transporting the food, and people selling it. None of those people are billionaires. In addition, all those people vote. They can easily vote for politicians who will order government workers (police, military) to simply seize whatever they need, for the common good, if it comes to that. That's one of the saving graces of democratic systems; the people do have the ultimate power. The only thing that keeps billionaires rich is that they've corrupted the system, but that can be changed (and does, if things get bad enough). Moreover, billionaires are called that because they own a lot of money; money is a fiction created by government. What government giveth, government can taketh away. The only people who have real power are those who can wield violence, not money. A billionaire is mostly powerless against one of his guards who decides to shoot him in the head and steal his stuff, and even more powerless if all his guards gang up and do this.
That's fine if two nations want to negotiate such a deal on their own. EU member have negotiated a less drastic deal wherein any EU citizen is able to go work in any other EU nation without having to be a citizen or apply for a visa or anything like that, like normal immigrants would. But no person can *expect* this of a nation which hasn't already agreed to such a deal.
That's more complicated than that. They basically bought up some land after WWI, and also were given some (as I understand), by the British, who had won control of all of that area formerly owned by the Ottoman Empire which lost the war to them. They didn't just move into some place and then demand citizenship from the nation currently governing it; they took it over through various legal means. That's not *that* different from how the US took over California: it won a war against Mexico, and also I believe paid them out a lot as part of the terms of the treaty ending the war.
Like it or not, but winning land in a war and also buying it are valid ways of acquiring territory that other people are already living on. If you disagree, look at Crimea and the world's (non-)response to its recent takeover by Russia. And takeovers which happened generations ago are done now; if you want to question them now, after so long, then almost every spot on Earth is now able to be contested, because it was previously owned by someone else.
plus California used to be part of Mexico FFS so what the fuck is the problem?
This part of your rant is irrelevant. People don't get to automatically become citizens just because their home nation used to own some land, centuries ago, that is now owned by some other nation. I'm pretty sure citizens of Belgium do not get to automatically become citizens of the Netherlands if they wish it, just because Belgium used to be part of the Netherlands centuries ago. Citizens of Italy sure as hell don't get to automatically become citizens of England just because the Roman Empire used to own Britain 2000 years ago.
The people who lived in California at the time the US took it over from Mexico became US citizens at that time. Anyone else, from parts of Mexico much farther south, ~175 years later, are not part of that deal.
Your other points make some sense, but this one is just dumb. The only thing that's relevant is modern borders, not borders from centuries ago. Mexico used to be the property of Spain. Should Spanish citizens get automatic Mexican citizenship if they decide to move there? Or should Spanish citizens get automatic US citizenship if they move to New Orleans?
The only problem I see with your dystopian nightmare scenario is: why would the vast majority of people go along with this horrible libertarian vision? We had something more like this in the past, during the "Gilded Age". That came to an end: we made unions, voted for politicians championing worker protections, we got OSHA, the FDA, etc. There are a lot more poor and working-class people than a few billionaire elites, and the military draws its members from the former group. The only way the elites are able to keep people in a crappy state like that is usually through trickery, and that only lasts so long ("you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time"). The only other way they'd be able to do it is with a vast army of robot police, and I just don't see that happening soon, if ever (the robot police still need people to program them and run them, and it's not the billionaire elites that spend their time learning programming and engineering, contrary to what's portrayed on "Iron Man"). We might very well take some backwards steps here with Trump and his merry men, but that's only temporary (or, it'll be long-term and the US will become a has-been like Spain and Italy while some other powers rise up and take its place, in which case a bunch of us will probably move there and leave these idiots to their own devices).
(If you think that sounds soul-sucking, an alternative but not-completely-exclusive outcome is that common people are used as lab rats in medical trials for drugs and procedures that keep the rich fit, healthy, and grant longevity.)
They're already doing that. I used to know a guy I hired for day-labor who made money participating in medically unnecessary drug trials.
After all we already believe that unemployment went up and the stock market went down under Obama - reality has no place in our decision making process.
This right here is why Trump was elected. Unemployment HAS gone up under Obama, regardless of what all the official statistics would have you believe. The problem is that the "official" numbers don't separate by region or locality. In the rural areas, unemployment has indeed gone up, badly. In the big liberal cities, it hasn't. Red-state dwellers and other ruralites don't care about the latter, any more than they care about the unemployment numbers in China or South Africa.
Also, the unemployment numbers don't reflect labor force participation, which is why they're complete BS.
Slashdot Mirror
The people most likely to be interested in a triple-screen laptop are people who hang out on tech forums like this one, not people reading TMZ. Guess which places are reporting this story the most.
Looks like the publicity stunt worked.
I completely disagree. I haven't seen this particular laptop, but conventional flat-screen monitors are not that small, because of the built-in stands and cases and all. Shipping 2 of these means now you have to lug around two rather large boxes, which have the monitors, their stands, their cables and power supplies, plus styrofoam to protect them. Setting it up will be a big PITA too: you'll need a power strip, you'll have to plug in a bunch of cables, set up the stands, etc., Conceivably, with a 3-screen laptop, you just have to lug around an extra-thick laptop, and then setting it up means just unfolding the displays and you're done. If you really want 3 screens and don't mind a bulky laptop, this is far, far more convenient. I could definitely see some people using this for business purposes where you need a serious machine with lots of monitor space, and need to be able to transport it from job site to job site where there won't already be monitors (with docking stations) you can plug into. Admittedly, it does seem to be a somewhat limited market, but that's OK; we have lots of cars which are made for very limited markets too and they do OK.
That's why that Onion article was so funny, in retrospect: at the time the article came out, Gillette wasn't yet making 5-bladed razors, I think they were only up to 4. Then, sometime after the satirical Onion article, they really did come out with 5-bladed razors, making the article now ironic (if I'm using my literary terms correctly; I'm an engineer, dammit, not a liberal arts major!).
It's a little bit like Arnold's 1986 movie "The Running Man". At the time, it was a not-so-serious and fairly humorous dystopian sci-fi action movie. Little did we know just how accurate it would be. (Check out, for instance, the paramilitary police in the movie, not to mention the foretelling of reality TV.)
Submitting a fraudulant report to law enforcement to consume valuable resources is not something that is "perfectly acceptable" no matter what legal wrapper (read: business) you want to excuse it with.
Wrong. In a corrupt country, it absolutely is "perfectly acceptable". If you can do a thing and legally get away with it because the legal system in that country is corrupt or broken, then it by definition is "perfectly acceptable". And if you disagree, why should I take the word of some random person on the internet over that of the actual legal authorities in a place?
No, it's not. Maybe in the "plenty of countries" you refer to it is, but here in the US it's not. The only way a highly skilled professional here can be held liable for something is if it's actually criminally negligent, and we're not talking about that here, we're talking about blocking ICMP traffic on a corporate intranet. Finally, in this specific example, we're not even doing what you say (simply following the manager's orders without raising concerns): in this example, someone DID raise concerns (by sending her a link to Wikipedia). It's at that point when I think it's uncalled for to go to heroic lengths to change the manager's mind, because it's simply too dangerous to your job; after she deems Wikipedia to be "untrustworthy" I'd just get clarification that that's really what she wants done and I'd do it, with emails stating that this is her decision and any consequences are her problem, not mine, so when the CEO hears about it he'll blame her. At the same time, I'd start looking for a new job because any place with an upper manager this incompetent isn't going to last long.
I'm confused. Is $4.8 billion how much Verizon paid for Yahoo!, or is it how much Yahoo! paid Verizon to take it over?
aaaand this is how western society rotts to the point of collapse.
Yep. But doing the right thing isn't going to fix this, it's just going to get you in trouble. It's up to our leaders to fix this kind of stuff, but they're not doing it, and we're happily choosing the worst leaders possible, so it's really hopeless. Best to just keep your head down and look for a convenient exit when things get bad enough, and set yourself up to get out when the time is right.
You really have to do some serious analysis on the conditions that create these ridiculous situation because this is a bad state of affairs.
Yes, it would be really interesting to see someone write up a good academic analysis of this. It's probably hard to do though, without the lens of history and time. Hindsight is 20/20 and all that.
Reporting "security issues" just makes people in power look bad, so it makes perfect sense that it would be strongly discouraged in such ways (fired, sued, arrested).
The simple thing to do: do not EVER report any security issues you come across. It's not going to benefit you in any way, and is quite likely to harm you greatly. Just forget you saw anything and don't say anything to anyone. If this means your company is likely to get hacked so badly that they're going to go under, then they were already circling the drain, so you should just start looking for a new gig.
This is a stupid answer.
Here's how you should actually handle people who report security issues:
1) If you're an IT director and it's a company employee who reported it, you need to inform the upper management that you have a possible hacker in the company, and get his ass fired.
2) If you work in a company and someone in the general public reported it, you need to notify your legal department so they can file a lawsuit against the person for defamation.
3) If you're in government and this was reported by someone in the general public of your country, you need to notify law enforcement so they'll be arrested for hacking and thrown in prison.
Only hackers would care about "security issues", and if that information becomes public, it will just help other hackers, so any such people need to be dealt with, extremely harshly. If you disagree, then you obviously are not in a position of power in the US.
I didn't read TFA, but I wonder if 100Kwh is really accurate, or are they estimating a 300 mile range from a vehicle much smaller and lighter than a Tesla S? Teslas are not very efficient cars: they're heavy and have wide tires, and are made for higher performance rather than ultimate energy efficiency. Making them the size of a Leaf, with some low rolling-resistance tires (which of course have terrible cornering performance) should significantly reduce the battery capacity needed for that range.
Anyway, the cable and connectors shouldn't be *that* ridiculous, if you have a high voltage (enabling your 300A option). A typical dryer connector I believe has a 50A capacity, and there's industrial connectors out there with a lot more. These cables shouldn't be much more unwieldy than a typical gas-station hose that everyone uses to fill up their car.
No, Spanish is correct, though putting French in here would also be correct. The French founded the city in 1718, but it went to Spain in 1763, then back to France very briefly in 1803 until Napoleon sold it to the US as part of the Louisiana Purchase.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Well it does seem that most powerful societies in history have fallen not due to outsiders, but instead to internal problems. Rome fell mainly due to internal corruption and incompetent leadership. But perhaps complacency in the later generations of Romans had something to do with this rise in corruption.
What are you talking about? FPGAs are more popular than ever these days. Now they've got tons of chips that combine FPGA fabrics with ARM core CPUs. You don't need to have ASICs as your final goal; these chips are cheap enough to use in more specialized applications as-is, giving you ASIC performance and reconfigurability. No, you're not going to see these chips in mass-market consumer products, but in higher-end smaller-volume stuff (like industrial equipment) you will. For instance, take a look inside telecom CO equipment; you'll probably see a bunch of FPGAs in there.
But Verilog is definitely the way to go, not VHDL.
You've probably never met one in RL because you've never talked to them directly about these issues.
I live near the DC area, and a huge number of 20- and 30-something women on the dating sites list "social justice" as a huge passion for them. Some of them go into more detail about some of their beliefs. But hanging out with singles in that age group in group events, I never hear this kind of stuff. Nor do I hear people voicing extreme opinions while I'm out and about in the metro area. Now perhaps the SJWs just don't like the group events I like (outdoor activities like hiking), but I think the real reason is simply that people tend to self-censor a lot when they're in "meatspace", and spout far more extreme stuff when online, where they have a cloak of anonymity. I do it myself in different ways: I'll happily write a somewhat extreme post here on /. at times, mainly just to generate intellectual discussion as a "devil's advocate" stance (plus also my Swift-esque sarcastic posts), whereas I wouldn't bother to do such a thing in RL because people will get mad and either start an argument or practice shunning, because they don't like having their beliefs challenged.
Briefly put, in the "real world" people act "polite" and avoid controversial discussion to avoid conflict. This veneer disappears online. And frequently to horrific effect, as seen in the comments sections of general-population news sites or worse, on the alt-right news sites.
That's why the only FM radio station I listen to is NPR. The music's a lot better too (I do like classic rock, but I get tired of listening to the same 20 songs over and over and over and over). The only problem is when they're doing pledge drives. Luckily, I just keep a USB thumb drive plugged in with my music library which I listen to most of the time.
Yep, when you're single and celibate, that lifestyle is very inexpensive and attainable.
One manager (who was in way over her head on the technical side but who could play the political games well) wanted us to block ALL ICMP traffic on the network. Her reason for this was "ping is a security risk". Yet, she didn't understand that ICMP is more than just ping. Someone sent her a link to the Wikipedia page on ICMP to explain this and she requested documentation from Cisco or another big name vendor because she didn't trust Wikipedia. This enterprising, and frustrated, individual sent her a link to the RFC for ICMP.
Why would anyone do this? You're just going to risk the manager's ire.
The correct course of action is to simply block ICMP traffic, as the manager says (assuming, of course, that this manager is the one you report directly to; otherwise, only do such a thing if ordered by your direct manager). Then sit back and watch the SHTF. When it inevitably does, you have a good excuse: you were ordered by this manager.
It boggles my mind why people are more prepared to keep paying for bandwidth and the associated problems such as connection dependencies, interstitial ads and increased battery usage, rather than just using local memory to store music.
Because people are lazy and stupid and happy to follow fads.
Sorry, starvation is not a viable answer. The billionaires don't have control of the food supply; that's in the hands of many, many different people: people working the farms (though largely automated), people transporting the food, and people selling it. None of those people are billionaires. In addition, all those people vote. They can easily vote for politicians who will order government workers (police, military) to simply seize whatever they need, for the common good, if it comes to that. That's one of the saving graces of democratic systems; the people do have the ultimate power. The only thing that keeps billionaires rich is that they've corrupted the system, but that can be changed (and does, if things get bad enough). Moreover, billionaires are called that because they own a lot of money; money is a fiction created by government. What government giveth, government can taketh away. The only people who have real power are those who can wield violence, not money. A billionaire is mostly powerless against one of his guards who decides to shoot him in the head and steal his stuff, and even more powerless if all his guards gang up and do this.
That's fine if two nations want to negotiate such a deal on their own. EU member have negotiated a less drastic deal wherein any EU citizen is able to go work in any other EU nation without having to be a citizen or apply for a visa or anything like that, like normal immigrants would. But no person can *expect* this of a nation which hasn't already agreed to such a deal.
That's more complicated than that. They basically bought up some land after WWI, and also were given some (as I understand), by the British, who had won control of all of that area formerly owned by the Ottoman Empire which lost the war to them. They didn't just move into some place and then demand citizenship from the nation currently governing it; they took it over through various legal means. That's not *that* different from how the US took over California: it won a war against Mexico, and also I believe paid them out a lot as part of the terms of the treaty ending the war.
Like it or not, but winning land in a war and also buying it are valid ways of acquiring territory that other people are already living on. If you disagree, look at Crimea and the world's (non-)response to its recent takeover by Russia. And takeovers which happened generations ago are done now; if you want to question them now, after so long, then almost every spot on Earth is now able to be contested, because it was previously owned by someone else.
plus California used to be part of Mexico FFS so what the fuck is the problem?
This part of your rant is irrelevant. People don't get to automatically become citizens just because their home nation used to own some land, centuries ago, that is now owned by some other nation. I'm pretty sure citizens of Belgium do not get to automatically become citizens of the Netherlands if they wish it, just because Belgium used to be part of the Netherlands centuries ago. Citizens of Italy sure as hell don't get to automatically become citizens of England just because the Roman Empire used to own Britain 2000 years ago.
The people who lived in California at the time the US took it over from Mexico became US citizens at that time. Anyone else, from parts of Mexico much farther south, ~175 years later, are not part of that deal.
Your other points make some sense, but this one is just dumb. The only thing that's relevant is modern borders, not borders from centuries ago. Mexico used to be the property of Spain. Should Spanish citizens get automatic Mexican citizenship if they decide to move there? Or should Spanish citizens get automatic US citizenship if they move to New Orleans?
The only problem I see with your dystopian nightmare scenario is: why would the vast majority of people go along with this horrible libertarian vision? We had something more like this in the past, during the "Gilded Age". That came to an end: we made unions, voted for politicians championing worker protections, we got OSHA, the FDA, etc. There are a lot more poor and working-class people than a few billionaire elites, and the military draws its members from the former group. The only way the elites are able to keep people in a crappy state like that is usually through trickery, and that only lasts so long ("you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time"). The only other way they'd be able to do it is with a vast army of robot police, and I just don't see that happening soon, if ever (the robot police still need people to program them and run them, and it's not the billionaire elites that spend their time learning programming and engineering, contrary to what's portrayed on "Iron Man"). We might very well take some backwards steps here with Trump and his merry men, but that's only temporary (or, it'll be long-term and the US will become a has-been like Spain and Italy while some other powers rise up and take its place, in which case a bunch of us will probably move there and leave these idiots to their own devices).
(If you think that sounds soul-sucking, an alternative but not-completely-exclusive outcome is that common people are used as lab rats in medical trials for drugs and procedures that keep the rich fit, healthy, and grant longevity.)
They're already doing that. I used to know a guy I hired for day-labor who made money participating in medically unnecessary drug trials.
After all we already believe that unemployment went up and the stock market went down under Obama - reality has no place in our decision making process.
This right here is why Trump was elected. Unemployment HAS gone up under Obama, regardless of what all the official statistics would have you believe. The problem is that the "official" numbers don't separate by region or locality. In the rural areas, unemployment has indeed gone up, badly. In the big liberal cities, it hasn't. Red-state dwellers and other ruralites don't care about the latter, any more than they care about the unemployment numbers in China or South Africa.
Also, the unemployment numbers don't reflect labor force participation, which is why they're complete BS.