Gun control does reduce (1). Gun toting murderous thugs often use their own or a relative's legal gun. Or steal someone's legally held gun. As an obvious recent example Adam Lanza.
Ah, so your true intentions come out: you're not talking about gun control, you're talking about prohibiting private ownership of guns altogether and mislabeling it as gun control.
It need not necessarily reduce (2). If you actually mean what you say. "Guards".
Obviously, I meant "guards" metaphorically as any person who would come to my defense.
However "if you don't step off the tracks before that freight train arrives then you will die" is a scientific statement.
Unfortunately, climate science isn't capable of making even that statement. All it can say is that continued carbon emissions will lead to modest and gradual temperature increases. Whether those are good or bad is purely speculation at this point.
I hate to break it to you, but the Kyoto Accord is based on science, whether you like that science or not.
The Kyoto Accord is based on the scientific fact that carbon emissions lead to increases in temperature. That's the only scientific fact it is based on. Everything else is speculation, unproven hypotheses, and politics, including the projections of future warming decades and centuries into the future and the proposed remedies. Being "based on science" isn't good enough for decision making.
Even worse, according to its own criteria, the Kyoto Accord isn't even effective. If the people who passed it really believed their own rhetoric, the Kyoto Accord would be useless because it doesn't even come close to addressing the problem that its authors claim actually exists.
They make assertions which don't match facts, and then say the scientists who have the facts have an agenda.
And they are almost certainly right. Almost nothing in medicine, environmental science, psychology, criminology, or climate science is a "fact" in the same sense that "F = m a" or "2 H2 + O2 -> 2 H2O" is a fact. Scientists who are claiming to have "facts" in these areas area are usually deluding themselves.
If there's one thing progressives all agree on, it's that facts are determined by what they consider socially desirable, not by what science actually says.
It's not a question of that, it's a question of wholesale exportation of jobs overseas to get 1) cheaper labor 2) avoid government regulation 3) dodge taxes
Good! If US voters can't get the US government to scale back some of its excessive taxes and regulations, maybe international competition can.
We haven't "gutted" our industries; US manufacturing is stronger than ever before. It's just that other parts of the economy have grown even faster.
Inviting hostile Second and Third World countries has made the world less safe given their predisposition to making things more dangerous and less free.
The world is safer than ever before: there is less violence, fewer armed conflicts, much leas threat to US interests, and less hunger.
If you start with delusional beliefs about the world, it's no wonder that you have all sorts of conspiracy theories to explain them.
Not as long as any US citizen continue to be harmed. Not as long as any fraud is committed by any business that shows their contempt for free US citizens.
US citizens aren't being harmed. America pushed the agenda of free trade on the rest of the world because it is in our interest. The protectionist bullshit you are spouting is what has gotten Europe and the rest of the world into trouble time and again.
What entitles businesses to have a better status in the world than the people that work for them?
Businesses don't have a "better status"; businesses are just collections of people and collections of investors.
Why should the United States have to bow before the world in order to prosper?
We're not "bowing" before anybody. We should uphold our Constitution. And free trade is an essentially American project; it is something we have forced the rest of the world into, for our own good and for theirs.
Surrender your citizenship, go to the EU or some Third World hellhole, globalist.
The kind of bullshit you are spouting is exactly what is getting the EU into trouble. You combine the protectionist and anti-free-market errors with a strong right wing viewpoint, and that pretty much defines "national socialism".
Unless you like bugs, type-checking is a good thing. Lack of type enforcement encourages what -- lack of forethought?
Unless you like bugs, you actually test your code. Most dynamically typed languages have strong type checking. And with testing, that type checking ends up being pretty much as strict as static type checking.
JavaScript's problem is that it is weakly typed (or has badly defined default operators), not that it doesn't force you to annotate or declare your types.
You seem to want some kind of guarantee of long term stability, but that doesn't exist in an era of rapid technological change. On the other hand, you also seem to think it's a disaster when the current jobs disappear, but it isn't. And you're blind to what's actually going on in the economy; for example, you think only in terms of manufactured consumer goods, when America's manufacturing sector is bigger than ever, but happens to be making higher value products that you don't really see. You simply can't project economic disaster based on a series of isolated data points and examples.
Obviously, an economy consisting only of lawyers, doctors, and service workers wouldn't work (unless we become legal and medical central for the rest of the world), so that's not how the economy is going to function. We just don't know what the jobs are going to be in 30 years, but there will be lots of jobs and they will be filled. And if more people were to stay at home to raise a family because one parent's income is enough for all their needs and wants, like they used to, all the better; we don't actually need to reach 100% labor participation rate or have lots of two person households working.
Except it hasn't. There's a reason why empathy and altruism exist, and both have shown positive correlation with the ability of the species to survive.
Yes, but they only operate at the level of small groups and require personal contact, and even there, it is a struggle to keep deception and fraud at bay. Trying to extend these concepts to large, anonymous groups of people isn't just wrong, it is manipulative.
Imagine that you bypass Amazon and buy directly from China. DealsExtreme does it very cheaply. Walmart and Target are the real constituency of your senators and congressmen.
Well, more free trade and lower import duties would be nice.
The time's coming when American retailers and businesses will be completely bought out or displaced by Chinese companies as will the management that runs those companies. Then the wailing and gnashing of teeth will begin.
The economy doesn't work that way; rather, as the Chinese get richer, they'll have a larger share of the world economy until we eventually reach an equilibrium. And as borders and trade become more open, it will matter less and less anyway.
My main point of irritation is that I can't legally buy movies, medicine, software development packages, and many other products for the extremely low price the same corporations legally sell them to indians and chinese for.
I agree that it's irritating. But I don't think it's rally all that serious. Differences are mostly for patents and copyrights, and those will go away as wage differences disappear.
It's been a long painful walk, but sometime in the next 4-8 years it won't be worth it to offshore any more.
I don't think it's been painful at all. We're actually much better off than we used to, and the fact that the Chinese and Indians have developed as well as they have makes us all a lot safer.
I was lucky. I lived on half of what I made since 2000 and I was able to retire early
That's not luck, you were prudent. More people should be like that.
Take away all the dishonesty and watch the cost "differential" evaporate into thin air.
Foreign programmers are willing to do the same job for less money; where's the "dishonesty"?
In addition, those guest workers are sought for having the status as indentured servants, something not associated with citizens in the properly functioning (and non-distorted by guest workers/illegals) job markets of First World countries like the US.
The workers Maxo-Texas was referring to are short term visitors that find out customer needs here and then go back to their home country. Where is the "indentured servitude" there? Even H1-B workers have the option of quitting and leaving any time they want; it is a temporary worker program, after all, and people signing up for it have no expectation of staying.
A few decades ago, McCarthy would have rightfully put you and these companies in their place for siding with enemies of the United States of America.
McCarthy was a moron. Fortunately, the US realized that free trade and free international competition was in its own security and economic interest, and we have prospered because of it.
Do you by T-shirts? Jeans? Cars? DVD players? Computers? They're all made overseas by companies that do it more cheaply than we do. If that didn't happen, they'd be much more expensive. So why does this become a problem all of a sudden if it's software development?
The ability to make guns at home is nothing new. Many people used to do it. The absurdity is that so many people have become so disconnected from chemistry, physics, metal/woodworking, and engineering that they actually think that this is anything remarkable. I suppose if all you ever do is write laws or software, "guns" are these bizarre complicated contraptions that come out of elaborate factories, when they are actually the metalworking equivalent of bubble sort.
The only way you are going to control guns if you erase pretty much any ability of people to work metal or plastic. I suppose it's possible to do so: interest in chemistry has largely been killed already through the war on drugs, misguided safety concerns, and anti-terrorism efforts, which have made most of the chemicals that people used to get introduced to chemistry through illegal or hard to obtain. If you are for gun control and the war on drugs, you are pretty much automatically against chemistry, engineering, and manufacturing skills, whether you know it or not.
It's pretty similar to the conflict between DRM, secure boot, hooks for law enforcement, and regulation of cryptography on the one hand, and open source and freedom to publish source code on the other.
You can make a working handgun or shotgun in less time and for less money with a hacksaw and a drill. And you get your choice of materials: metal or plastic.
Those frequencies are probably affected just as much by rain and fog as optical, and pretty much as directional. You can easily get multiple Gbps systems off the shelf.
Slashdot Mirror
Ephemeral communications would be nice. Snapchat, however, seems broken and doesn't serve this purpose.
Random physical structures have been used for this purpose for decades.
Ah, so your true intentions come out: you're not talking about gun control, you're talking about prohibiting private ownership of guns altogether and mislabeling it as gun control.
Obviously, I meant "guards" metaphorically as any person who would come to my defense.
(1) Gun toting murderous thugs? None. (2) Armed guards protecting me? The more the better
Gun control does nothing to affect the size of population (1), but it reduces the size of population (2).
Unfortunately, climate science isn't capable of making even that statement. All it can say is that continued carbon emissions will lead to modest and gradual temperature increases. Whether those are good or bad is purely speculation at this point.
The Kyoto Accord is based on the scientific fact that carbon emissions lead to increases in temperature. That's the only scientific fact it is based on. Everything else is speculation, unproven hypotheses, and politics, including the projections of future warming decades and centuries into the future and the proposed remedies. Being "based on science" isn't good enough for decision making.
Even worse, according to its own criteria, the Kyoto Accord isn't even effective. If the people who passed it really believed their own rhetoric, the Kyoto Accord would be useless because it doesn't even come close to addressing the problem that its authors claim actually exists.
And they are almost certainly right. Almost nothing in medicine, environmental science, psychology, criminology, or climate science is a "fact" in the same sense that "F = m a" or "2 H2 + O2 -> 2 H2O" is a fact. Scientists who are claiming to have "facts" in these areas area are usually deluding themselves.
If there's one thing progressives all agree on, it's that facts are determined by what they consider socially desirable, not by what science actually says.
Good! If US voters can't get the US government to scale back some of its excessive taxes and regulations, maybe international competition can.
We haven't "gutted" our industries; US manufacturing is stronger than ever before. It's just that other parts of the economy have grown even faster.
The world is safer than ever before: there is less violence, fewer armed conflicts, much leas threat to US interests, and less hunger.
If you start with delusional beliefs about the world, it's no wonder that you have all sorts of conspiracy theories to explain them.
US citizens aren't being harmed. America pushed the agenda of free trade on the rest of the world because it is in our interest. The protectionist bullshit you are spouting is what has gotten Europe and the rest of the world into trouble time and again.
Businesses don't have a "better status"; businesses are just collections of people and collections of investors.
We're not "bowing" before anybody. We should uphold our Constitution. And free trade is an essentially American project; it is something we have forced the rest of the world into, for our own good and for theirs.
The kind of bullshit you are spouting is exactly what is getting the EU into trouble. You combine the protectionist and anti-free-market errors with a strong right wing viewpoint, and that pretty much defines "national socialism".
Languages like Smalltalk, Python, and Lisp have "true type checkers" as well, and they are strong, they just happen to be dynamic type checkers.
Unless you like bugs, you actually test your code. Most dynamically typed languages have strong type checking. And with testing, that type checking ends up being pretty much as strict as static type checking.
JavaScript's problem is that it is weakly typed (or has badly defined default operators), not that it doesn't force you to annotate or declare your types.
You seem to want some kind of guarantee of long term stability, but that doesn't exist in an era of rapid technological change. On the other hand, you also seem to think it's a disaster when the current jobs disappear, but it isn't. And you're blind to what's actually going on in the economy; for example, you think only in terms of manufactured consumer goods, when America's manufacturing sector is bigger than ever, but happens to be making higher value products that you don't really see. You simply can't project economic disaster based on a series of isolated data points and examples.
Obviously, an economy consisting only of lawyers, doctors, and service workers wouldn't work (unless we become legal and medical central for the rest of the world), so that's not how the economy is going to function. We just don't know what the jobs are going to be in 30 years, but there will be lots of jobs and they will be filled. And if more people were to stay at home to raise a family because one parent's income is enough for all their needs and wants, like they used to, all the better; we don't actually need to reach 100% labor participation rate or have lots of two person households working.
Actually, CPI almost certainly overestimates, rather than underestimates, inflation.
Yes, but they only operate at the level of small groups and require personal contact, and even there, it is a struggle to keep deception and fraud at bay. Trying to extend these concepts to large, anonymous groups of people isn't just wrong, it is manipulative.
Well, more free trade and lower import duties would be nice.
The economy doesn't work that way; rather, as the Chinese get richer, they'll have a larger share of the world economy until we eventually reach an equilibrium. And as borders and trade become more open, it will matter less and less anyway.
I agree that it's irritating. But I don't think it's rally all that serious. Differences are mostly for patents and copyrights, and those will go away as wage differences disappear.
I don't think it's been painful at all. We're actually much better off than we used to, and the fact that the Chinese and Indians have developed as well as they have makes us all a lot safer.
That's not luck, you were prudent. More people should be like that.
Foreign programmers are willing to do the same job for less money; where's the "dishonesty"?
The workers Maxo-Texas was referring to are short term visitors that find out customer needs here and then go back to their home country. Where is the "indentured servitude" there? Even H1-B workers have the option of quitting and leaving any time they want; it is a temporary worker program, after all, and people signing up for it have no expectation of staying.
McCarthy was a moron. Fortunately, the US realized that free trade and free international competition was in its own security and economic interest, and we have prospered because of it.
Do you by T-shirts? Jeans? Cars? DVD players? Computers? They're all made overseas by companies that do it more cheaply than we do. If that didn't happen, they'd be much more expensive. So why does this become a problem all of a sudden if it's software development?
The ability to make guns at home is nothing new. Many people used to do it. The absurdity is that so many people have become so disconnected from chemistry, physics, metal/woodworking, and engineering that they actually think that this is anything remarkable. I suppose if all you ever do is write laws or software, "guns" are these bizarre complicated contraptions that come out of elaborate factories, when they are actually the metalworking equivalent of bubble sort.
The only way you are going to control guns if you erase pretty much any ability of people to work metal or plastic. I suppose it's possible to do so: interest in chemistry has largely been killed already through the war on drugs, misguided safety concerns, and anti-terrorism efforts, which have made most of the chemicals that people used to get introduced to chemistry through illegal or hard to obtain. If you are for gun control and the war on drugs, you are pretty much automatically against chemistry, engineering, and manufacturing skills, whether you know it or not.
It's pretty similar to the conflict between DRM, secure boot, hooks for law enforcement, and regulation of cryptography on the one hand, and open source and freedom to publish source code on the other.
You can make a working handgun or shotgun in less time and for less money with a hacksaw and a drill. And you get your choice of materials: metal or plastic.
Those frequencies are probably affected just as much by rain and fog as optical, and pretty much as directional. You can easily get multiple Gbps systems off the shelf.
The publishers didn't get their monopolies by nefarious business practices, they were handed their monopoly by school boards and voters.
So please point the finger where it needs to be pointed: at school boards and the voters who keep opposing school choice.