Do you speak Scottish English (or indeed Celtic Scots?) and insist that other Americans should learn Scottish pronouciation? Do your parents? Are people malicious (intending harm) of they speak American English rather than Scottish English?
That's the allegation I responded to - that is malicious (~evil) for an American to have trouble pronouncing German words. In all likelihood, you pronounce an Americanized version of your own surname, just as Gutneckt becomes "Goodnight". In my case, my family in America pronounces "Morris" as you'd expect an American to, More-iss. (If unsure what I mean, check Youtube for my cousin, mega-church pastor Robert Morris and how he pronounces it). In Scotland, the name is more like mOatiys or moeddiys. The O, R, and I sounds are all different than American English. We don't think you're evil for saying "more iss".
At what point is it enough? Right now the government takes 37% of your pay, and clearly that's not enough for you. How much is enough? 50%? 80%?
FYI if you wren't aware Washington gets 37% and you get 63%, it looks something like this: You earn $100. Washington takes $7.65 and calls it FICA. (Actually they take 15.3%, but let's pretend it's only 7.65%) You have $92.35 left. Washington takes $20-$25 and calls it income taxes. You have about $70 left. You use the $70 to put gas in your cars. Washington takes $5.36, calling it gas tax. You earned $100 and get $65 worth of gas - Washington took the other $35.
It's 2017. It's not 250 years ago. So let's ask about *today*. Today, which does more damage:
a) Some idiot hick dressing in a sheet in his buddy's backyard in rural Kentucky
b) State governments endorsing official policy that they recognize black students aren't as capable as white students, and therefore need some "bonus points", a "head start" in order to compete with whites.
In my family's experience (b) has been far more damaging. The opinions of some idiot shaving his head and wearing a sheet can be ignored and quite obviously should be. It really doesn't matter what Jeff Berry thinks. Nobody cares. Jeff Berry's racism matters not a bit, to anyone other than Jeff Berry. On the other hand, the government is actively teaching an entire generation that "blacks" are inferior, that you should feel sorry for them because they can't make it - and most kids today believe that bullshit.
> Liberal "compassion" is just a nicer way of looking down their noses.
it it is, but let's also remember it's heartfelt and sincere. They really, truly believe that they are being good and helpful with all these "extra points for black people" schemes and such. They don't understand the damage of training a generation to believe that black people* aren't smart enough, aren't capable of competing on their merits. Liberals aren't evil, they're just wrong about race. Very, very wrong.
* A few colors in RGB notation: Black: 0, 0, 0 White, 255, 255, 255 Middle gray: 128, 128, 128 Morgan Freeman's face: 183, 147, 111 Will Smith: 228, 134, 105
Americans of African descent are actually closer to white than to black. They are pinkish-brown. There are no black people.
> some malicious ignorance against immigrants to America.
Did you just say that for an American to not know German is MALICIOUS?! Wow.
Once upon a time, most immigrants coming to America wanted to become part of America. They came here to become Americans, not to impose the ways of their old country on America. If they wanted to live like a German person, in a place like Germany, they could simply stay in Germany! My ancestors are an example. I'm an American. My great-father was a German, until he became an American and raised his kids as Americans. Same with my other great-father, he was Scots-Irish before he decided to become an American.
A few weeks ago I was talking to a friend who moved here from Pakistan. He recently brought his wife here and they are making a point of getting out and doing things around town, meeting local people, trying local food, hearing local music, etc. Why? "Because she's an American now!", he proclaimed.
Entering a country waiving the flag of the country you're coming from and insisting that the people there learn your language and customs is traditionally known as "invasion", not "immigration".
Surnames that are English words are also sometimes adopted by immigrants. For example, the American name Goodnight is transliterated from the German Gutknecht. I would have guessed that Goodenough was an Americanized version of German Gut-something.
> Why the heck would anyone value Ford or GM more than Tesla. Ford and GM's unrealistically optimistic dream would be "be in the exact same place we are now 20 years from now."
Ford and GM are making $10 billion profit each year, and have been for a long, long time. They've been making money for over a hundred years. The question for Ford and GM is whether they'll make $9.5 billion next year or $10.5 billion. So yeah it would be just terrible for them to "be in the exact same place we are now 20 years from now." I sure hate to be making $10 billion every year.
Tesla, on the other hand, has lost money every year. Tesla MIGHT start making money at some point. Eighty years from now, Tesla might be making $10 billion / year. Also Tesla might go the way of Myspace. We'll find out in a few decades.
> Liberal organizations generally have good intentions. > That is not the same as working for the common good.
Absolutely. Or at least 99.9% of liberals generally have good intentions. Once in a while, the leaders of advocacy organizations get so passionate about trying to beat the other team and such that they temporarily forget the good intentions.
For me, the #1 issue on which there is a huge difference between liberals' good intentions is their focus on race and generally dividing people into groups, which is then the basis for their condescending form of racism. They sincerely believe that they are doing my daughter a service by insisting that she be given extra points in any competitive situation college admission criteria, federal hiring preferences, SBA loans, etc because she's black and female. What my daughter hears when she looks at college admissions is "black people like you aren't smart enough to compete on your merits, so we have to give you some extra points". The SBA is effectively telling her "we know you black people aren't capable of preparing a solid business plan, so we'll give you done extra make-up points." Fuck you! My daughter's IQ and test scores are well above those of the people making those rules. She's smarter and more capable than the liberals who take pity on her. They mean well, but "taking pity on her", "giving her a little extra help" is nothing but a condescending form of racism. Because this condescending racism is endorsed by our country's schools, government, and other institutions, it has a certain amount of credibility. People take it seriously, as though my daughter's complexion really DOES indicate she's less intelligent or less capable. That makes it more damaging than those KKK idiots who at least ADMIT they are racist, and therefore their opinions should obviously be ignored.
I think there is a distinction between long term, over the course of weeks and months, vs short-term, in bar when you're currently eating salty food at the moment.
Eating more salt over the course of a month or two may certainly be associated with eating more that month. Maybe because french fries and chips taste better than unsalted potatoes.
In the very short term, at a bar, eating salty snacks definitely makes you thirsty at the moment - the body wants to balance the intake of salt and water - basically to the wash the salty taste out of your mouth, when it's very salty.
Sweat is salt water. When you sweat, your body is losing water and salt. Therefore you need to consume more water and salt to replace what was lost. That's why you take water and salt when you're hot and sweating.
Separately, retaining salt also requires retaining water to balance out the salt, but retaining water isn't really something you aim for, unless you're a camel.
> The real problem there, if there is one core problem, is that "Conservative does detailed analysis of Iowa state Department of Human Services budget and makes the following 542 findings" and "Liberal does detailed analysis of Vermont state Department of Corrections and makes the following 384 findings" isn't going to attract attention ( much less improve advertising revenue ) like raging about lazy poor people or bleeding-heart liberals or raging about greedy business owners or racist conservatives.
That's certainly true, and quite unfortunate. That's one thing I appreciated about Ross Perot - rather than run a shit ton of 15-second commercials, he did 30-minute presentations on TV with charts and graphs attempting to educate people on the issues he thought most important.
> I can fire back
You can of course fire back. You could even before listening to what I'm saying. Is that helpful? Does that advance us toward some mutually-agreeable solutions?
> conservatives generally think all government social welfare spending is a giant fraud supporting lazy people
I'm fairly sure you know that quite false, so yeah, firing back with lies would be not only "not helpful", but quite counter-productive. I'm glad you decided not to go down the road, at least not too far.
> liberals dig into solid numbers about poverty, illnesses, crime rates, workplace injuries, and so forth.
Come on now. I pointed to one example everyone knows - Lennon's "Imagine", every liberal knows it and sings along. Is there a famous song called "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" that conservatives know and love? Maybe that famous hit "Be cautious of unintended consequences"? They aren't called the liberal arts for nothing.;) Pick just about any famous liberal speech and you can just about guarantee it'll heavily feature one of these three words: hope, dream, imagine. Match the caricature to the idealogy:
Hippy with a tambourine singing about love. Accountant-type in a suit with glasses.
Which one is the liberal stereotype and which is the conservative caricature? There's a REASON it's that way and not the opposite. Nobody looks at an accountant and guesses they are probably liberal.
Look at the verbs in the campaign slogans for this election:
Donald Trump "Make America Great Again!" - MAKE
Bernie Sanders "A Future To Believe In" - BELIEVE
Hillary Clinton "I'm With HER" "Hillary For America" - No action at all ("her" is emphasized though)
The conservative action is "make", the liberal actions are "believe" and well, nothing. Though "I'm with HER" suggests dividing people into demographic groups. Is the action "divide"?
> I wonder what Ballmer's political affiliations are...
Ballmer has donated roughly equally to Republicans and Democrats - he doesn't seem to politically passionate either way. He's more of analyst than an advocate, a numbers guy. I don't follow Ballmer closely, but from what I've seen I'd posit he doesn't hate Obama or hate Bush, the opaqueness of the entire federal bureaucracy bugs him. I could be wrong though.
One can draw some conclusions from the nature of the project - though different readers will draw different conclusions. The project will compile thousands of pages of data - hard numbers compiled from government sources. It's compiling data, not bumper sticker slogans. If you think the data, reality, supports certain political positions, you can conclude that compiling the data and making it more readily available will support those positions.
Personally, it seems *to me* that some of the lofty ideals that liberals tend to focus on are best advocated in an inspirational medium such as music (ie "Imagine" by John Lennon), while the more pragmatic issues of costs etc that conservatives tend to focus on are seen more in the numbers. I'm not saying either is right or wrong, better or worse. Both are needed, I think - it's worthwhile to "Imagine there's no countries... Imagine no possessions... No need for greed or hunger". After imagining for a while, it is then time to look at how much we need to spend on which programs to reduce hunger in the US vs how much we should budget for international aid, etc.
Most of what people cite as worthwhile government services - roads, schools, police and fire, etc, are done by the STATE governments. Yet the feds take most your money. In some instances, such as transportation, Washington takes your money, takes a cut, then sends part back to your state to spend on roads or whatever. The state handles getting the road built, all the feds do is take a cut.
Switches use binary CAM to map MAC addresses to interfaces, and for other purposes. Very similarly, routers use ternary CAM to map ip addresses to interfaces, and for other purposes.
When processing packets/frames through the device, switches and routers do essentially the same thing - select the outgoing interface by looking up the destination address in a CAM table. The difference between switches and routers is how those CAM tables are built.
> a lot of risks are eliminated or realized before things go out the door; in practice, this means a fairly conservative and slow development process.
At one place I worked, we were very fast at getting new requests developed and out the door - because we weren't busy fixing the code we shipped six months earlier, and the code we shipped last week. So it may *look* slow if you watch a careful process in action from minute to minute, but it's much faster on a macro scale - features get released sooner when developers aren't running around putting out fires that they themselves kindled.
Companies that don't do testing and code review spend 80% of their time running around putting out fires. There are other fires they don't even know about yet.
Companies who do code review spend 10% of their time on that, and their developers stressed out all the time trying to put out fires.
Doing it right is much cheaper than doing it over.
You'd certainly LIKE to know the precise location of any weapons pointed your direction. In reality, soldiers get shot, often by weapons they didn't know the location of. Quite a bit of effort goes into *trying* to figure out where the enemy is precisely because it's difficult.
There is one unfortunate fact about being a defender. NK has about 70 subs. We don't even know for sure exactly how many there are, at least not publicly. Our goal is to know where ALL their subs are, ALL of the time. Their goal is to sneak ONE sub away, perhaps under a freighter, ONE time. If we're 99% successful at tracking their subs, that's not good enough. A defender needs a 100% success rate in order to be safe, an attacker with a 0.1% success rate could blow up a city.
As mentioned before, it's much easier to know where your own weapons are then to know where the enemy's weapons are, yet we sometimes fail at keeping track of even our own weapons.
At the level this research is, storing a bit, CAM is just like bog-standard DRAM. What sets CAM apart is basically more addressing lines. That's external to the memory cells themselves. The other difference of CAM is how the output is interpreted, since you're reading all addresses at once. Again, that's quite external to the individual bit memories.
> how is a RAM advancement supposed to cut all power consumed by computers, switches, etc in half?
Cutting it in HALF is probably overstating it, but all of those devices use RAM, and would benefit from more efficient RAM.
Generally, routers (real routers, as opposed to consumer wireless access points) process 99.9% of the packets with RAM tricks, using almost no cpu. The cpu is mostly there to process commands to the router, such as configuration changes, while packets flowing *through* the router are directed by memory tables and a specialized chip.
The intersection of money and politics is a problem. Probably an unsolvable problem for reasons that are beyond the scope of this post.
Charles Koch compared the contest between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton to being asked to choose cancer or a heart attack. He then compared Trump to Hitler https://www.theguardian.com/us...
Yet Trump is president, having run as a Republican. Clearly the Koch brothers don't in fact pick the president, nor the republican nominee. In fact, most powerful republicans opposed Trump's nomination; the de-facto leader of the party and 3rd in the line of succession, House Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, refused to endorse or defend Trump. All the powerful people (and arguably all the well-informed people) opposed Trump, yet he's president simply because ordinary voters liked what he had to say, more than they liked Clinton or Cruz, anyway.
A few years ago we ran a college student for city council, because we weren't happy with what some of the old fogeys on the council were doing. Our favorite word, "authoritarian" might apply to the established council.:)
The college student won, because we voted for him, and he got under the established council-members' skin because he wouldn't play the game. Much like Bernie Sanders or Rand Paul, this college student (Jess Fields) refused to go along with the rest of the council when they weren't doing the right thing. Jess is now running for the state legislature, and we fully expect he'll win.
If Bernie Sanders and Rand Paul can get elected to Congress, as much as they grate on the establishment, there's no reason we can't elect Jess Fields to Congress in a few years. He's a lot brighter, and representative of the people, than the idiot Congressman this article is about.
> What you just did is to confirm that you are out of step with the party that you apparently support.
As I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, these days I can't vote for a party, I have to spend the time to select a candidate, on their merits. As an example, for me, both Hillary and Trump seemed to be rather bad options, so I wouldn't vote for either based on party. I voted against Trump twice and against Hillary once.
In the *primaries* I must choose whether to vote in the Republican primary, the Democrat, or the Libertarian. For reasons outside the scope of this post, I find the general platform and approach of the Democrat leadership to be repugnant, so there are few Democrats I can support. The libertarian primary isn't strategically as important (though a libertarian vote in the general can make sense), so in the primary I end up voting with the intent of trying to get the Republicans to nominate the best (least objectionable?) candidate.
Once upon a time, before I got sick of it all, I used to call in to Conservative talk shows reminding their guests amd listeners that if conservatives support the Constitution, that means they must support the first amendment, not just the second amendment. The fourth amendment too. This because the liberals don't even pretend to value the Constitution, their shtick is ignoring ("reinterpreting") the Constitution based on how they feel from week to week. I can't make a Constitutional argument to an audience who believes the Constitution has no meaning beyond whatever their emotional gut feeling is at the moment. Again, I'm not saying conservatives follow the Constitution - I'm saying the CLAIM to. When they fail to do so, I can point out the inconsistency between their words and their actions.
Thanks for answering my question, to the extent that you did so. I still don't quite understand some of your statements which seem, to me, to be contradictory, but that's fine.
> how about you answer my question.
Are you referring to this question?: > > If you are against "rules"...
I am in fact not against rules, including laws. In l particular, I study what I think are the most important laws - what you might call "meta laws", or some use the term "organic law" - laws which organizing a system for making laws. These are laws, or rules, about who can make laws about what, and how laws are made. The US Constitution, as amended, is an important example. Trump can't just declare new laws, there is a process, a process by which laws are made. There are well-defined limits on Trump's power and I think that's supremely important. Before Trump ran for president, I warned here on Slashdot that it was foolish to assent to Obama stretching the limits of his power, because that set precedent that would apply to President Palin or whoever came next. Now that Trump is president, I think most people agree that it's important to stand firm on the limits of presidential power.
A rule made by the FDA or the FCC is important, but far more important, to me, are the laws about what the FDA can do and how they can do it. Does the FDA have a legitimate power to make it illegal for you to eat something from your garden? If so, where does that legitimacy come from? The FDA says their power is delegated to them from Congress. Congress claims they have powers because the powers were delegated to Congress by the states, through the Constitution. Do the states have a legitimate right to tell you what you may eat from your garden? Did the states actually delegate that power to Congress? The argument, upheld in the Wheat Cases, is that the feds were granted that power by the INTERSTATE COMMERCE clause. Note there's nothing interstate going on, and there is no commerce, when you grow something in your garden. Yet SCOTUS decided that the Washington bureaucrats can forbid you from growing your own garden, for your own consumption, because that's "regulating interstate commerce". Bullshit, I say.
I believe that Colorado, through a vote of its citizens, can legalize marijuana. Growing your own weed is not "interstate commerce", so no, the states did not delegate to Washington the power to decide what you grow in your garden.
Even more interesting, perhaps, are the meta-meta-laws, the laws about how Constitutional law is made. You mentioned that laws need to be changed from time to time. Minor laws can be changed with minor consequences. Important laws will have important consequences - both desired consequences and unintended consequences. Therefore the process for changing the most important law, the process for amending the Constitution, is supremely important. Changes to the Constitution (amendments) are a big deal, so they should be done carefully, and with full participation of the citizens who will hopefully be as informed as possible about these important issues.
I didn't say I'm against rules. I haven't said anything about what I'm for or against. I just keep asking you what you think, and you keep not answering, preferring to attack. "I'm not sure" yet is a perfectly valid answer - perhaps the wisest answer, so if you're still open-minded, if you haven't decided, you can sure say that. No need to try to attack me for asking.
For example, you just said. > laws concerning what products I can grow in my garden and eat or smoke
That suggests you think legalizing marijuana is a probably a good idea. It sounds like you'd strongly agree with this statement: __ Individuals have the freedom and responsibility to decide what they knowingly and voluntarily consume, and what risks they accept to their own health, finances, safety, or life. --
That's the top item on the Libertarian platform.
Yet, your sig is that Libertarians are "tards". In one sentence you advocate the same the position that is the very top of the Libertarian platform, then you immediately call them "tards".
Have you not yet made up your mind, or are we having a bit of a communication problem? I keep asking the same question, you keep not answering. I'm not sure where to go from here if you just want to attack, attack, attack (without knowing what you're attacking), and don't want to have any discussion.
> There is plenty wrong with the Democrat party that I'd love to see fixed, but right now voting for a Republican candidate is a non-starter.
For me, I can't vote for a party anymore. I have to take the extra time to research the candidates - and not just glance at headlines. Both parties have some ridiculously bad candidates and a few good ones.
> If the GOP would ditch the anti-science and pro-Christianity views, it could turn into a party that I might actually support.
Right now I think there are three factions, or branches, in the Republican party. The Moral Majority of the Reagan years is officially gone, bankrupt and no more. The party was going much more Libertarian; now Trump supporters voted "Republican" this last time - though Trump has little in common with traditional Republicans. Grabbing them by the pussy isn't a Christian ideal. "It is easier for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of Heaven", Christians are reminded, and a billionaire won the Republican nomination, so there's a large, decidedly non-Christian element who voted Republican in this election.
You don't know if you're supporting radically more government control of your life, or radically less - and you call *me* an idiot.
You hate those Republicans, just like you've been told to, and dutifully call anyone who asks you what you think, or asks you TO think, a "useful idiot", then scurry away before they say something else that might cause you to accidentally think.
I'll ask you again, do you want radically more government control, do you want politicians to have *un*limited power? Clearly you bought it when someone told you the Libertarian distrust of politicians seeking more power is stupid; is that because you trust politicians, and want to give them more power?
I undertand it might be disconcerting for me to ask you what you think. It might be scary to stop and think for three seconds in order to answer that question. It really might be interesting to be able to answer that question, though - are you trying for radically more government control, or radically less? Or is it just about right how it is?
Slashdot Mirror
Do you speak Scottish English (or indeed Celtic Scots?) and insist that other Americans should learn Scottish pronouciation? Do your parents? Are people malicious (intending harm) of they speak American English rather than Scottish English?
That's the allegation I responded to - that is malicious (~evil) for an American to have trouble pronouncing German words. In all likelihood, you pronounce an Americanized version of your own surname, just as Gutneckt becomes "Goodnight". In my case, my family in America pronounces "Morris" as you'd expect an American to, More-iss. (If unsure what I mean, check Youtube for my cousin, mega-church pastor Robert Morris and how he pronounces it). In Scotland, the name is more like mOatiys or moeddiys. The O, R, and I sounds are all different than American English. We don't think you're evil for saying "more iss".
Okay so for you it's pretty much about you want to send more of our money to Washington, it sounds like. Okay. Just curious, looking at this:
http://www.usgovernmentspendin...
At what point is it enough? Right now the government takes 37% of your pay, and clearly that's not enough for you. How much is enough? 50%? 80%?
FYI if you wren't aware Washington gets 37% and you get 63%, it looks something like this:
You earn $100.
Washington takes $7.65 and calls it FICA. (Actually they take 15.3%, but let's pretend it's only 7.65%)
You have $92.35 left.
Washington takes $20-$25 and calls it income taxes. You have about $70 left.
You use the $70 to put gas in your cars. Washington takes $5.36, calling it gas tax. You earned $100 and get $65 worth of gas - Washington took the other $35.
> racism over the last 250 years
It's 2017. It's not 250 years ago. So let's ask about *today*. Today, which does more damage:
a) Some idiot hick dressing in a sheet in his buddy's backyard in rural Kentucky
b) State governments endorsing official policy that they recognize black students aren't as capable as white students, and therefore need some "bonus points", a "head start" in order to compete with whites.
In my family's experience (b) has been far more damaging. The opinions of some idiot shaving his head and wearing a sheet can be ignored and quite obviously should be. It really doesn't matter what Jeff Berry thinks. Nobody cares. Jeff Berry's racism matters not a bit, to anyone other than Jeff Berry. On the other hand, the government is actively teaching an entire generation that "blacks" are inferior, that you should feel sorry for them because they can't make it - and most kids today believe that bullshit.
> Liberal "compassion" is just a nicer way of looking down their noses.
it it is, but let's also remember it's heartfelt and sincere. They really, truly believe that they are being good and helpful with all these "extra points for black people" schemes and such. They don't understand the damage of training a generation to believe that black people* aren't smart enough, aren't capable of competing on their merits. Liberals aren't evil, they're just wrong about race. Very, very wrong.
* A few colors in RGB notation:
Black: 0, 0, 0
White, 255, 255, 255
Middle gray: 128, 128, 128
Morgan Freeman's face: 183, 147, 111
Will Smith: 228, 134, 105
Americans of African descent are actually closer to white than to black. They are pinkish-brown. There are no black people.
> some malicious ignorance against immigrants to America.
Did you just say that for an American to not know German is MALICIOUS?! Wow.
Once upon a time, most immigrants coming to America wanted to become part of America. They came here to become Americans, not to impose the ways of their old country on America. If they wanted to live like a German person, in a place like Germany, they could simply stay in Germany! My ancestors are an example. I'm an American. My great-father was a German, until he became an American and raised his kids as Americans. Same with my other great-father, he was Scots-Irish before he decided to become an American.
A few weeks ago I was talking to a friend who moved here from Pakistan. He recently brought his wife here and they are making a point of getting out and doing things around town, meeting local people, trying local food, hearing local music, etc. Why? "Because she's an American now!", he proclaimed.
Entering a country waiving the flag of the country you're coming from and insisting that the people there learn your language and customs is traditionally known as "invasion", not "immigration".
Surnames that are English words are also sometimes adopted by immigrants. For example, the American name Goodnight is transliterated from the German Gutknecht. I would have guessed that Goodenough was an Americanized version of German Gut-something.
> Why the heck would anyone value Ford or GM more than Tesla. Ford and GM's unrealistically optimistic dream would be "be in the exact same place we are now 20 years from now."
Ford and GM are making $10 billion profit each year, and have been for a long, long time. They've been making money for over a hundred years. The question for Ford and GM is whether they'll make $9.5 billion next year or $10.5 billion. So yeah it would be just terrible for them to "be in the exact same place we are now 20 years from now." I sure hate to be making $10 billion every year.
Tesla, on the other hand, has lost money every year. Tesla MIGHT start making money at some point. Eighty years from now, Tesla might be making $10 billion / year. Also Tesla might go the way of Myspace. We'll find out in a few decades.
> Liberal organizations generally have good intentions.
> That is not the same as working for the common good.
Absolutely. Or at least 99.9% of liberals generally have good intentions. Once in a while, the leaders of advocacy organizations get so passionate about trying to beat the other team and such that they temporarily forget the good intentions.
For me, the #1 issue on which there is a huge difference between liberals' good intentions is their focus on race and generally dividing people into groups, which is then the basis for their condescending form of racism. They sincerely believe that they are doing my daughter a service by insisting that she be given extra points in any competitive situation college admission criteria, federal hiring preferences, SBA loans, etc because she's black and female. What my daughter hears when she looks at college admissions is "black people like you aren't smart enough to compete on your merits, so we have to give you some extra points". The SBA is effectively telling her "we know you black people aren't capable of preparing a solid business plan, so we'll give you done extra make-up points." Fuck you! My daughter's IQ and test scores are well above those of the people making those rules. She's smarter and more capable than the liberals who take pity on her. They mean well, but "taking pity on her", "giving her a little extra help" is nothing but a condescending form of racism. Because this condescending racism is endorsed by our country's schools, government, and other institutions, it has a certain amount of credibility. People take it seriously, as though my daughter's complexion really DOES indicate she's less intelligent or less capable. That makes it more damaging than those KKK idiots who at least ADMIT they are racist, and therefore their opinions should obviously be ignored.
I think there is a distinction between long term, over the course of weeks and months, vs short-term, in bar when you're currently eating salty food at the moment.
Eating more salt over the course of a month or two may certainly be associated with eating more that month. Maybe because french fries and chips taste better than unsalted potatoes.
In the very short term, at a bar, eating salty snacks definitely makes you thirsty at the moment - the body wants to balance the intake of salt and water - basically to the wash the salty taste out of your mouth, when it's very salty.
Sweat is salt water. When you sweat, your body is losing water and salt. Therefore you need to consume more water and salt to replace what was lost. That's why you take water and salt when you're hot and sweating.
Separately, retaining salt also requires retaining water to balance out the salt, but retaining water isn't really something you aim for, unless you're a camel.
> The real problem there, if there is one core problem, is that "Conservative does detailed analysis of Iowa state Department of Human Services budget and makes the following 542 findings" and "Liberal does detailed analysis of Vermont state Department of Corrections and makes the following 384 findings" isn't going to attract attention ( much less improve advertising revenue ) like raging about lazy poor people or bleeding-heart liberals or raging about greedy business owners or racist conservatives.
That's certainly true, and quite unfortunate. That's one thing I appreciated about Ross Perot - rather than run a shit ton of 15-second commercials, he did 30-minute presentations on TV with charts and graphs attempting to educate people on the issues he thought most important.
> I can fire back
You can of course fire back. You could even before listening to what I'm saying. Is that helpful? Does that advance us toward some mutually-agreeable solutions?
> conservatives generally think all government social welfare spending is a giant fraud supporting lazy people
I'm fairly sure you know that quite false, so yeah, firing back with lies would be not only "not helpful", but quite counter-productive. I'm glad you decided not to go down the road, at least not too far.
> liberals dig into solid numbers about poverty, illnesses, crime rates, workplace injuries, and so forth.
Come on now. I pointed to one example everyone knows - Lennon's "Imagine", every liberal knows it and sings along. Is there a famous song called "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" that conservatives know and love? Maybe that famous hit "Be cautious of unintended consequences"? They aren't called the liberal arts for nothing. ;) Pick just about any famous liberal speech and you can just about guarantee it'll heavily feature one of these three words: hope, dream, imagine. Match the caricature to the idealogy:
Hippy with a tambourine singing about love.
Accountant-type in a suit with glasses.
Which one is the liberal stereotype and which is the conservative caricature? There's a REASON it's that way and not the opposite. Nobody looks at an accountant and guesses they are probably liberal.
Look at the verbs in the campaign slogans for this election:
Donald Trump "Make America Great Again!" - MAKE
Bernie Sanders "A Future To Believe In" - BELIEVE
Hillary Clinton "I'm With HER" "Hillary For America" - No action at all ("her" is emphasized though)
The conservative action is "make", the liberal actions are "believe" and well, nothing. Though "I'm with HER" suggests dividing people into demographic groups. Is the action "divide"?
> I wonder what Ballmer's political affiliations are...
Ballmer has donated roughly equally to Republicans and Democrats - he doesn't seem to politically passionate either way. He's more of analyst than an advocate, a numbers guy. I don't follow Ballmer closely, but from what I've seen I'd posit he doesn't hate Obama or hate Bush, the opaqueness of the entire federal bureaucracy bugs him. I could be wrong though.
One can draw some conclusions from the nature of the project - though different readers will draw different conclusions. The project will compile thousands of pages of data - hard numbers compiled from government sources. It's compiling data, not bumper sticker slogans. If you think the data, reality, supports certain political positions, you can conclude that compiling the data and making it more readily available will support those positions.
Personally, it seems *to me* that some of the lofty ideals that liberals tend to focus on are best advocated in an inspirational medium such as music (ie "Imagine" by John Lennon), while the more pragmatic issues of costs etc that conservatives tend to focus on are seen more in the numbers. I'm not saying either is right or wrong, better or worse. Both are needed, I think - it's worthwhile to "Imagine there's no countries ... Imagine no possessions ... No need for greed or hunger". After imagining for a while, it is then time to look at how much we need to spend on which programs to reduce hunger in the US vs how much we should budget for international aid, etc.
Most of what people cite as worthwhile government services - roads, schools, police and fire, etc, are done by the STATE governments. Yet the feds take most your money. In some instances, such as transportation, Washington takes your money, takes a cut, then sends part back to your state to spend on roads or whatever. The state handles getting the road built, all the feds do is take a cut.
Switches use binary CAM to map MAC addresses to interfaces, and for other purposes. Very similarly, routers use ternary CAM to map ip addresses to interfaces, and for other purposes.
When processing packets/frames through the device, switches and routers do essentially the same thing - select the outgoing interface by looking up the destination address in a CAM table. The difference between switches and routers is how those CAM tables are built.
> a lot of risks are eliminated or realized before things go out the door; in practice, this means a fairly conservative and slow development process.
At one place I worked, we were very fast at getting new requests developed and out the door - because we weren't busy fixing the code we shipped six months earlier, and the code we shipped last week. So it may *look* slow if you watch a careful process in action from minute to minute, but it's much faster on a macro scale - features get released sooner when developers aren't running around putting out fires that they themselves kindled.
Companies that don't do testing and code review spend 80% of their time running around putting out fires. There are other fires they don't even know about yet.
Companies who do code review spend 10% of their time on that, and their developers stressed out all the time trying to put out fires.
Doing it right is much cheaper than doing it over.
ONE of the fixes was fairly recent. Most are old fixes for old exploits.
Our company actually has more recent code than the NSA has in this dump.
From our analysis so far, we're most concerned about Windows 2003.
You'd certainly LIKE to know the precise location of any weapons pointed your direction. In reality, soldiers get shot, often by weapons they didn't know the location of. Quite a bit of effort goes into *trying* to figure out where the enemy is precisely because it's difficult.
There is one unfortunate fact about being a defender. NK has about 70 subs. We don't even know for sure exactly how many there are, at least not publicly. Our goal is to know where ALL their subs are, ALL of the time. Their goal is to sneak ONE sub away, perhaps under a freighter, ONE time. If we're 99% successful at tracking their subs, that's not good enough. A defender needs a 100% success rate in order to be safe, an attacker with a 0.1% success rate could blow up a city.
As mentioned before, it's much easier to know where your own weapons are then to know where the enemy's weapons are, yet we sometimes fail at keeping track of even our own weapons.
At the level this research is, storing a bit, CAM is just like bog-standard DRAM. What sets CAM apart is basically more addressing lines. That's external to the memory cells themselves. The other difference of CAM is how the output is interpreted, since you're reading all addresses at once. Again, that's quite external to the individual bit memories.
> how is a RAM advancement supposed to cut all power consumed by computers, switches, etc in half?
Cutting it in HALF is probably overstating it, but all of those devices use RAM, and would benefit from more efficient RAM.
Generally, routers (real routers, as opposed to consumer wireless access points) process 99.9% of the packets with RAM tricks, using almost no cpu. The cpu is mostly there to process commands to the router, such as configuration changes, while packets flowing *through* the router are directed by memory tables and a specialized chip.
The intersection of money and politics is a problem. Probably an unsolvable problem for reasons that are beyond the scope of this post.
Charles Koch compared the contest between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton to being asked to choose cancer or a heart attack. He then compared Trump to Hitler https://www.theguardian.com/us...
Yet Trump is president, having run as a Republican. Clearly the Koch brothers don't in fact pick the president, nor the republican nominee. In fact, most powerful republicans opposed Trump's nomination; the de-facto leader of the party and 3rd in the line of succession, House Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, refused to endorse or defend Trump. All the powerful people (and arguably all the well-informed people) opposed Trump, yet he's president simply because ordinary voters liked what he had to say, more than they liked Clinton or Cruz, anyway.
A few years ago we ran a college student for city council, because we weren't happy with what some of the old fogeys on the council were doing. Our favorite word, "authoritarian" might apply to the established council. :)
The college student won, because we voted for him, and he got under the established council-members' skin because he wouldn't play the game. Much like Bernie Sanders or Rand Paul, this college student (Jess Fields) refused to go along with the rest of the council when they weren't doing the right thing. Jess is now running for the state legislature, and we fully expect he'll win.
If Bernie Sanders and Rand Paul can get elected to Congress, as much as they grate on the establishment, there's no reason we can't elect Jess Fields to Congress in a few years. He's a lot brighter, and representative of the people, than the idiot Congressman this article is about.
> What you just did is to confirm that you are out of step with the party that you apparently support.
As I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, these days I can't vote for a party, I have to spend the time to select a candidate, on their merits. As an example, for me, both Hillary and Trump seemed to be rather bad options, so I wouldn't vote for either based on party. I voted against Trump twice and against Hillary once.
In the *primaries* I must choose whether to vote in the Republican primary, the Democrat, or the Libertarian. For reasons outside the scope of this post, I find the general platform and approach of the Democrat leadership to be repugnant, so there are few Democrats I can support. The libertarian primary isn't strategically as important (though a libertarian vote in the general can make sense), so in the primary I end up voting with the intent of trying to get the Republicans to nominate the best (least objectionable?) candidate.
Once upon a time, before I got sick of it all, I used to call in to Conservative talk shows reminding their guests amd listeners that if conservatives support the Constitution, that means they must support the first amendment, not just the second amendment. The fourth amendment too. This because the liberals don't even pretend to value the Constitution, their shtick is ignoring ("reinterpreting") the Constitution based on how they feel from week to week. I can't make a Constitutional argument to an audience who believes the Constitution has no meaning beyond whatever their emotional gut feeling is at the moment. Again, I'm not saying conservatives follow the Constitution - I'm saying the CLAIM to. When they fail to do so, I can point out the inconsistency between their words and their actions.
Thanks for answering my question, to the extent that you did so. I still don't quite understand some of your statements which seem, to me, to be contradictory, but that's fine.
> how about you answer my question.
Are you referring to this question?:
> > If you are against "rules"...
I am in fact not against rules, including laws. In l particular, I study what I think are the most important laws - what you might call "meta laws", or some use the term "organic law" - laws which organizing a system for making laws. These are laws, or rules, about who can make laws about what, and how laws are made. The US Constitution, as amended, is an important example. Trump can't just declare new laws, there is a process, a process by which laws are made. There are well-defined limits on Trump's power and I think that's supremely important. Before Trump ran for president, I warned here on Slashdot that it was foolish to assent to Obama stretching the limits of his power, because that set precedent that would apply to President Palin or whoever came next. Now that Trump is president, I think most people agree that it's important to stand firm on the limits of presidential power.
A rule made by the FDA or the FCC is important, but far more important, to me, are the laws about what the FDA can do and how they can do it. Does the FDA have a legitimate power to make it illegal for you to eat something from your garden? If so, where does that legitimacy come from? The FDA says their power is delegated to them from Congress. Congress claims they have powers because the powers were delegated to Congress by the states, through the Constitution. Do the states have a legitimate right to tell you what you may eat from your garden? Did the states actually delegate that power to Congress? The argument, upheld in the Wheat Cases, is that the feds were granted that power by the INTERSTATE COMMERCE clause. Note there's nothing interstate going on, and there is no commerce, when you grow something in your garden. Yet SCOTUS decided that the Washington bureaucrats can forbid you from growing your own garden, for your own consumption, because that's "regulating interstate commerce". Bullshit, I say.
I believe that Colorado, through a vote of its citizens, can legalize marijuana. Growing your own weed is not "interstate commerce", so no, the states did not delegate to Washington the power to decide what you grow in your garden.
Even more interesting, perhaps, are the meta-meta-laws, the laws about how Constitutional law is made. You mentioned that laws need to be changed from time to time. Minor laws can be changed with minor consequences. Important laws will have important consequences - both desired consequences and unintended consequences. Therefore the process for changing the most important law, the process for amending the Constitution, is supremely important. Changes to the Constitution (amendments) are a big deal, so they should be done carefully, and with full participation of the citizens who will hopefully be as informed as possible about these important issues.
> If you are against "rules"
I didn't say I'm against rules. I haven't said anything about what I'm for or against. I just keep asking you what you think, and you keep not answering, preferring to attack. "I'm not sure" yet is a perfectly valid answer - perhaps the wisest answer, so if you're still open-minded, if you haven't decided, you can sure say that. No need to try to attack me for asking.
For example, you just said.
> laws concerning what products I can grow in my garden and eat or smoke
That suggests you think legalizing marijuana is a probably a good idea. It sounds like you'd strongly agree with this statement:
__
Individuals have the freedom and responsibility to decide what they knowingly and voluntarily consume, and what risks they accept to their own health, finances, safety, or life.
--
That's the top item on the Libertarian platform.
Yet, your sig is that Libertarians are "tards". In one sentence you advocate the same the position that is the very top of the Libertarian platform, then you immediately call them "tards".
Have you not yet made up your mind, or are we having a bit of a communication problem? I keep asking the same question, you keep not answering. I'm not sure where to go from here if you just want to attack, attack, attack (without knowing what you're attacking), and don't want to have any discussion.
> There is plenty wrong with the Democrat party that I'd love to see fixed, but right now voting for a Republican candidate is a non-starter.
For me, I can't vote for a party anymore. I have to take the extra time to research the candidates - and not just glance at headlines. Both parties have some ridiculously bad candidates and a few good ones.
> If the GOP would ditch the anti-science and pro-Christianity views, it could turn into a party that I might actually support.
Right now I think there are three factions, or branches, in the Republican party. The Moral Majority of the Reagan years is officially gone, bankrupt and no more. The party was going much more Libertarian; now Trump supporters voted "Republican" this last time - though Trump has little in common with traditional Republicans. Grabbing them by the pussy isn't a Christian ideal. "It is easier for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of Heaven", Christians are reminded, and a billionaire won the Republican nomination, so there's a large, decidedly non-Christian element who voted Republican in this election.
You don't know if you're supporting radically more government control of your life, or radically less - and you call *me* an idiot.
You hate those Republicans, just like you've been told to, and dutifully call anyone who asks you what you think, or asks you TO think, a "useful idiot", then scurry away before they say something else that might cause you to accidentally think.
I'll ask you again, do you want radically more government control, do you want politicians to have *un*limited power? Clearly you bought it when someone told you the Libertarian distrust of politicians seeking more power is stupid; is that because you trust politicians, and want to give them more power?
I undertand it might be disconcerting for me to ask you what you think. It might be scary to stop and think for three seconds in order to answer that question. It really might be interesting to be able to answer that question, though - are you trying for radically more government control, or radically less? Or is it just about right how it is?