Representatives exist to represent their constituents. They can and do ask questions that have nothing to do with their legislative role. So no, there's absolutely no constitutional issue with this. There'd only be a problem if legislation were being threatened and proposed.
I'd expect a company that makes a variety of different computerized systems like Burroughs or IBM to buy a company that specializes in just one type, not vice versa.
Are you sure the data isn't being collected anyway? Web browsers need to store this information anyway to ensure browser history (your back button, and purple links) and the cache works. It sounds to me as if Mozilla is just finding a new use for the data Firefox is storing anyway.
I suspect he's talking about costs once consumed to propel something, rather than a simple joule comparison. Oil is pretty much only efficient at heating things outside of still exotic technologies like carbon fuel cells, and even the latter is a "convert to electricity then do <something>" thing. When it comes to moving a load from A to B, oil burnt in a ICE is so much less efficient the alternatives that the cost per mile is considerably higher.
$22/hour for the fuel, plus 1/9th of a pilot's salary (assumes plane is full), 1/9th of a flight attendant's salary, plus (and here are the big ones) a share of the amortized costs of the aircraft itself, plus maintenance.
So probably a substantial amount more than $22/hour. Still good, but I doubt it'll be less than current airline costs.
From what I can work out Google's common login system was always built around YouTube, not Google+, despite being branded with the latter. As a result, it's relatively easy to delink the social network from the rest of their products.
I think some of them just assume that anyone who criticises the US must hate America.
I used to think that, but I think in practice that all you're seeing is people using the fact some on the left are critical of many aspects of US policies and the extremes of capitalism that it reaffirms their view. Look at the history of this, and you've been looking at "Left wing" = "Anti-America" since before McCarthy.
If you were here you'd see the most stupid bumper stickers, I've literally seen "Liberal = Traitor" or variants of that more than once. Here we are, it's 2018, the Republican President is a literal Russian puppet, his entire party is - it's an open secret - under Russian blackmail, the Russians aren't our friends (hell, for all the stick we give them, if France had the same control over the Republicans the Russians have right now, the situation would be better, not that I'd want that either), and in the mean time the conservatives are still pushing the "Democrats hate America" bullshit.
And it doesn't surprise me in many ways, because the Republicans lost the plot a long time ago. I saw a "Christian" church in West Palm Beach just before the election with members openly claiming that members who voted Democratic wouldn't be welcome any more. Because... ? I mean, what Christian values does the Republican party have? It's kinda anti-abortion, and... anything? Helping the poor and sick? Promoting peace? Reining in the banks and other moneylenders? Avoiding killing by avoiding wars and the death penalty when there are alternatives? Well, do its leaders live up to that personal life thing, I mean, do they not cheat on their spouses, are they honest even outside of politics?
I mean anything at all? Other than "Abortion" I mean?
This has been going on for decades. It's not new.
DNS-and-BIND is basically part of a system that promotes a "Republicans good, Democrats bad" mentality that ignores what's really happening on the ground. Democrats are shit, but the difference is that liberals know that, and we limit our criticisms of the Republicans to actual verifiable facts for the most part. Republicans = freedom, Republicans = Jesus, Democrats = treason, Democrats hate troops, etc, was never a real thing, DNS-and-BIND believes it anyway because the alternative, the truth, is just impossible for him to handle.
I know a number of overweight people. Two things I've noticed is that (1) we haven't really significantly increased the number of calories we've been eating since the 1980s when the current issues started and (2) the people I know (with one exception) do not eat more than most people, and do, in fact, exercise just as much.
So... yes, while technically a solution is for everyone to eat less and do a mandatory hour on a treadmill every day, what I'd ask are what the health risks are for that. We'd be talking about a literal decrease in daily calorie intake over what is "normal", is that actually healthy?
The study's focus on a gene that might help is interesting, but it seems like it's a bandaid - perhaps one that might work, but not something that'll help us restore whatever change caused the crisis to begin with.
(My money is on sugar substitutes. Diet Coke was introduced in the early 1980s, was a massive success, and it started an explosion of diet drinks, foods, etc, all of which contain sugar substitutes known to kill gut bacteria, whereas sugar substitutes had been relatively rare before that. The timings and methods fit, the question is whether that explains it alone.)
To people like DNS-and-BIND the left is "the one that hates America". That's an article of faith. Normally it doesn't exhibit itself in times like this because rightists never actually listen to the left in the first place, but it also is why they can literally side with an anti-American foreign government interfering in a US election, oppose basic services from healthcare to transportation to ordinary Americans, hate Americans who are not white, heterosexual, protestant, and preferably male, support politicians who likewise hate the 60-70% of Americans who aren't in that group, and so on. The right can literally side with a temporary nationstate that existed in the 1860s whose existance was solely the result of mass treason by the shittiest people, at that time, on Earth, and still accuse "long haired hippies" of committing reason because they're opposed to whatever shitty unnecessary and ultimately self-defeating war we're fighting today.
So don't be surprised. Of course he doesn't know you. He just knows you're "left wing", and therefore must hate America because if you didn't, that would upset his worldview. He'd suddenly realize that he supports the most extreme anti-American government in recent history and that almost all of his positions are against the interests of America, both as a nation state and as a nation of people.
to something like this which probably doesn't even bother with error bars
1. It does include margins of error
2. The predictions made in prior reports have actually come true to within the margin of error
3. "Probably doesn't" is something only an idiot who has never read something would say. So you're admitting you don't know what something is saying, but are saying it's wrong anyway. Also you've done no research whatsoever to find out if it is wrong, even by asking people who'd know.
It's hard to quantify the level of idiocy necessary to write the two comments you've written, but if we build a model to determine your lack of intelligence based upon those comments, I can pretty much guess that the "error bars" are going to be fairly narrow.
No, she called fascists and misogynists deplorables.
Despite numerous idiots claiming otherwise, she never claimed that all Americans, all Republicans, or even all Trump supporters were "deplorables". She said early in the campaign, during the primaries, when Trump had about 30% of the Republican vote, that HALF of Trump's supporters were "deplorables" - fascists etc.
Because Republicans can't do anything other than lie when it comes to Clinton, they literally lied about what she said and pretended it applied to all Republicans.
âoeYou know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trumpâ(TM)s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?â Clinton said. âoeThe racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobicâ"you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.â
She said the other half of Trumpâ(TM)s supporters âoefeel that the government has let them downâ and are âoedesperate for change.â
âoeThose are people we have to understand and empathize with as well,â she said.
source - note Trump was just the leading Republican candidate at that point, with a plurality, but not a majority, of the Republican vote.
There really aren't many people inside or outside of CA who buy homes with saved up cash. Unless you have rich parents, the only way to do it is to spend 20 years or so saving up, while living with your parents or otherwise renting a room and minimizing the amount of money you spend on having a home. That also effectively means putting your life on hold.
Am too typical stereotypical Californian. Name is Rex Doobieson and live just south of San Francisco in Los Angeles. In mornings surf in Pacific Ocean before going to day job as rookie cop with mismatched partner. In evenings eat tacos like all good Californians. Too am against solar panels on house. For one, panels too easily damaged by vodka. For another, too easily broken by bears. Repair costs would be many hundreds of dollars (thousands of rubles.) Why use solar when can use good clean energy like oil products from Gazprom?
I suspect that most people would interpret what AC said the same way that I did.
No, I think most of us understand English and know the way you interpreted it bore no relation to the words the AC used. The quote you're pretending meant "It's impossible to upgrade an iPhone 6 to 12.1.1" read "But by refusing updates, my iPhone 6 will continue to perform to hardware spec for several more years."
I HATE this shit. I HATE the fact that Slashdot is full of shitheads like you who ignore what people say and attack them for saying something else, often saying the complete fucking opposite of what they actually said.
I can understand making a mistake, people do that, it's when fuckers like you DOUBLE DOWN and continue to pretend that you didn't slip up and completely misread the comment and that your miscomprehension was legitimate that I really get pissed off. It's one of the reasons why it's so hard to have a sane conversation here.
Kinda hard to do that when the trend has been to hobble public transportation over the last few decades, and in any case most of the time transit is introduced - when it is - while a city is growing.
However, the fact it reduces traffic is actually completely self evident. Here's a great animated GIF that shows why. As long as they get enough riders, a bus will always take up less room and as a result reduce traffic compared to the equivalent number of cars. And for "A normal city bus", that's probably three or four riders (think how many cars traveling at 30mph could safely fit the same space as a bus end to end and with a buffer zone)
FWIW, I wasn't completely disagreeing with you, but emphasizing that just because driving in the suburbs isn't as horrifying as in a city, it doesn't change the fact that as a lifestyle it's absolutely terrible.
American zoning has turned the country into a collection of souless AnytownUSA places (essentially clusters of strip malls - a group of stores that share a parking lot - surrounding, if you're lucky, a city hall and court house, with suburbs built in one square mile blocks interleaving the strip malls), with employers usually 30 to 60 minutes away for most people, and no way to get anywhere except driving. The results include that the cost of living is ridiculously high and the destruction of most opportunities for socialization outside of employment, or maybe parents meeting other parents at school functions.
I'm baffled it's just accepted here. Indeed, every American except one that I've met that's been to Europe (including the UK) has come back shocked, marveling at how much more pleasant and less stressful life is in the cities, particularly excited by the buses and trains and lack of need to use a car, wishing we had it over here. (The one exception was also impressed but didn't want it here because he's a car fanatic.) Unfortunately, we can't, because we can't have nice things.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you really live somewhere where your city water supply keeps having outages every few days, but your Internet is rock solid?
This isn't about them being gatekeepers, it's about Google's recommendation algorithms constantly promoting the worst, most vile, shit they host.
Maybe Google should stop recommending videos or come up with some other way to make it easier for people to find things they're interested in.
Representatives exist to represent their constituents. They can and do ask questions that have nothing to do with their legislative role. So no, there's absolutely no constitutional issue with this. There'd only be a problem if legislation were being threatened and proposed.
I'd expect a company that makes a variety of different computerized systems like Burroughs or IBM to buy a company that specializes in just one type, not vice versa.
Sounds good!
Are you sure the data isn't being collected anyway? Web browsers need to store this information anyway to ensure browser history (your back button, and purple links) and the cache works. It sounds to me as if Mozilla is just finding a new use for the data Firefox is storing anyway.
...which will require staff to build and deploy. So still not getting it. Unless everyone quitting is in upper middle management or something?
It's a good point, but has anyone actually gotten a root shell prompt to the MINIX layer in their i7?
(No, I'm not asking because I'm concerned about security breaches, I just want to be able to play with it, I'm a nerd not a security expert.)
Yeah... "mock Slashdot for decades" over trolling? Give me a break. I barely care enough to mock them right now. In fact... nope. Not at all.
Now, dups? Apparently, that just never gets old.
I suspect he's talking about costs once consumed to propel something, rather than a simple joule comparison. Oil is pretty much only efficient at heating things outside of still exotic technologies like carbon fuel cells, and even the latter is a "convert to electricity then do <something>" thing. When it comes to moving a load from A to B, oil burnt in a ICE is so much less efficient the alternatives that the cost per mile is considerably higher.
$22/hour for the fuel, plus 1/9th of a pilot's salary (assumes plane is full), 1/9th of a flight attendant's salary, plus (and here are the big ones) a share of the amortized costs of the aircraft itself, plus maintenance.
So probably a substantial amount more than $22/hour. Still good, but I doubt it'll be less than current airline costs.
Google Drive is just the latest version of Google Docs, it's not going anywhere.
Hangouts, yes, it's being phased out, to be replaced by a couple of new products that aren't Hangouts but are called Hangouts because... they want Politifact to rule anything that says Hangouts is being shut down a lie I guess.
But Hangouts is not being phased out in April.
From what I can work out Google's common login system was always built around YouTube, not Google+, despite being branded with the latter. As a result, it's relatively easy to delink the social network from the rest of their products.
I used to think that, but I think in practice that all you're seeing is people using the fact some on the left are critical of many aspects of US policies and the extremes of capitalism that it reaffirms their view. Look at the history of this, and you've been looking at "Left wing" = "Anti-America" since before McCarthy.
If you were here you'd see the most stupid bumper stickers, I've literally seen "Liberal = Traitor" or variants of that more than once. Here we are, it's 2018, the Republican President is a literal Russian puppet, his entire party is - it's an open secret - under Russian blackmail, the Russians aren't our friends (hell, for all the stick we give them, if France had the same control over the Republicans the Russians have right now, the situation would be better, not that I'd want that either), and in the mean time the conservatives are still pushing the "Democrats hate America" bullshit.
And it doesn't surprise me in many ways, because the Republicans lost the plot a long time ago. I saw a "Christian" church in West Palm Beach just before the election with members openly claiming that members who voted Democratic wouldn't be welcome any more. Because... ? I mean, what Christian values does the Republican party have? It's kinda anti-abortion, and... anything? Helping the poor and sick? Promoting peace? Reining in the banks and other moneylenders? Avoiding killing by avoiding wars and the death penalty when there are alternatives? Well, do its leaders live up to that personal life thing, I mean, do they not cheat on their spouses, are they honest even outside of politics?
I mean anything at all? Other than "Abortion" I mean?
This has been going on for decades. It's not new.
DNS-and-BIND is basically part of a system that promotes a "Republicans good, Democrats bad" mentality that ignores what's really happening on the ground. Democrats are shit, but the difference is that liberals know that, and we limit our criticisms of the Republicans to actual verifiable facts for the most part. Republicans = freedom, Republicans = Jesus, Democrats = treason, Democrats hate troops, etc, was never a real thing, DNS-and-BIND believes it anyway because the alternative, the truth, is just impossible for him to handle.
I know a number of overweight people. Two things I've noticed is that (1) we haven't really significantly increased the number of calories we've been eating since the 1980s when the current issues started and (2) the people I know (with one exception) do not eat more than most people, and do, in fact, exercise just as much.
So... yes, while technically a solution is for everyone to eat less and do a mandatory hour on a treadmill every day, what I'd ask are what the health risks are for that. We'd be talking about a literal decrease in daily calorie intake over what is "normal", is that actually healthy?
The study's focus on a gene that might help is interesting, but it seems like it's a bandaid - perhaps one that might work, but not something that'll help us restore whatever change caused the crisis to begin with.
(My money is on sugar substitutes. Diet Coke was introduced in the early 1980s, was a massive success, and it started an explosion of diet drinks, foods, etc, all of which contain sugar substitutes known to kill gut bacteria, whereas sugar substitutes had been relatively rare before that. The timings and methods fit, the question is whether that explains it alone.)
Oops. Heh. If only.
To people like DNS-and-BIND the left is "the one that hates America". That's an article of faith. Normally it doesn't exhibit itself in times like this because rightists never actually listen to the left in the first place, but it also is why they can literally side with an anti-American foreign government interfering in a US election, oppose basic services from healthcare to transportation to ordinary Americans, hate Americans who are not white, heterosexual, protestant, and preferably male, support politicians who likewise hate the 60-70% of Americans who aren't in that group, and so on. The right can literally side with a temporary nationstate that existed in the 1860s whose existance was solely the result of mass treason by the shittiest people, at that time, on Earth, and still accuse "long haired hippies" of committing reason because they're opposed to whatever shitty unnecessary and ultimately self-defeating war we're fighting today.
So don't be surprised. Of course he doesn't know you. He just knows you're "left wing", and therefore must hate America because if you didn't, that would upset his worldview. He'd suddenly realize that he supports the most extreme anti-American government in recent history and that almost all of his positions are against the interests of America, both as a nation state and as a nation of people.
1. It does include margins of error
2. The predictions made in prior reports have actually come true to within the margin of error
3. "Probably doesn't" is something only an idiot who has never read something would say. So you're admitting you don't know what something is saying, but are saying it's wrong anyway. Also you've done no research whatsoever to find out if it is wrong, even by asking people who'd know.
It's hard to quantify the level of idiocy necessary to write the two comments you've written, but if we build a model to determine your lack of intelligence based upon those comments, I can pretty much guess that the "error bars" are going to be fairly narrow.
No, she called fascists and misogynists deplorables.
Despite numerous idiots claiming otherwise, she never claimed that all Americans, all Republicans, or even all Trump supporters were "deplorables". She said early in the campaign, during the primaries, when Trump had about 30% of the Republican vote, that HALF of Trump's supporters were "deplorables" - fascists etc.
Because Republicans can't do anything other than lie when it comes to Clinton, they literally lied about what she said and pretended it applied to all Republicans.
source - note Trump was just the leading Republican candidate at that point, with a plurality, but not a majority, of the Republican vote.
Let's ignore them then and set our entire agenda based upon the needs of people in swing states.
Isn't that more or less what Clinton did, and she was pilloried for it?
There really aren't many people inside or outside of CA who buy homes with saved up cash. Unless you have rich parents, the only way to do it is to spend 20 years or so saving up, while living with your parents or otherwise renting a room and minimizing the amount of money you spend on having a home. That also effectively means putting your life on hold.
Am too typical stereotypical Californian. Name is Rex Doobieson and live just south of San Francisco in Los Angeles. In mornings surf in Pacific Ocean before going to day job as rookie cop with mismatched partner. In evenings eat tacos like all good Californians. Too am against solar panels on house. For one, panels too easily damaged by vodka. For another, too easily broken by bears. Repair costs would be many hundreds of dollars (thousands of rubles.) Why use solar when can use good clean energy like oil products from Gazprom?
No, I think most of us understand English and know the way you interpreted it bore no relation to the words the AC used. The quote you're pretending meant "It's impossible to upgrade an iPhone 6 to 12.1.1" read "But by refusing updates, my iPhone 6 will continue to perform to hardware spec for several more years."
I HATE this shit. I HATE the fact that Slashdot is full of shitheads like you who ignore what people say and attack them for saying something else, often saying the complete fucking opposite of what they actually said.
I can understand making a mistake, people do that, it's when fuckers like you DOUBLE DOWN and continue to pretend that you didn't slip up and completely misread the comment and that your miscomprehension was legitimate that I really get pissed off. It's one of the reasons why it's so hard to have a sane conversation here.
I really wish people like you would just die.
However, the fact it reduces traffic is actually completely self evident. Here's a great animated GIF that shows why. As long as they get enough riders, a bus will always take up less room and as a result reduce traffic compared to the equivalent number of cars. And for "A normal city bus", that's probably three or four riders (think how many cars traveling at 30mph could safely fit the same space as a bus end to end and with a buffer zone)
FWIW, I wasn't completely disagreeing with you, but emphasizing that just because driving in the suburbs isn't as horrifying as in a city, it doesn't change the fact that as a lifestyle it's absolutely terrible.
American zoning has turned the country into a collection of souless AnytownUSA places (essentially clusters of strip malls - a group of stores that share a parking lot - surrounding, if you're lucky, a city hall and court house, with suburbs built in one square mile blocks interleaving the strip malls), with employers usually 30 to 60 minutes away for most people, and no way to get anywhere except driving. The results include that the cost of living is ridiculously high and the destruction of most opportunities for socialization outside of employment, or maybe parents meeting other parents at school functions.
I'm baffled it's just accepted here. Indeed, every American except one that I've met that's been to Europe (including the UK) has come back shocked, marveling at how much more pleasant and less stressful life is in the cities, particularly excited by the buses and trains and lack of need to use a car, wishing we had it over here. (The one exception was also impressed but didn't want it here because he's a car fanatic.) Unfortunately, we can't, because we can't have nice things.