You're just jealous because after they banned you from New York, people started getting healthier. Though I'm not quite sure why they did that, my guess is because you had your first initial installed on your back and were cited for indecent exposure, B-B-B-Barbara.
Though in all seriousness, what you have are in fact not genitals, otherwise you may as well define an anus as genitals. Instead what you have is an open wound that, as we sit here, is trying to heal itself, and requires constant intervention to prevent that from happening. Sure, it may be fashioned to look similar to genitals, but it's really only a facsimile.
It worked for Bruce Jenner after he killed somebody in a bout of totally reckless driving, and then subsequently blamed it on one of his victims. The media didn't give a shit about that; he just got a sex change and then was immediately branded a hero.
That's not what happens, or even what might happen. What happens is otherwise healthy organs are being removed, and what is put in their place are not genitals at all, and in fact the person has no genitals after the surgery.
You could argue all you want about whether or not that should be socially acceptable, but that is a fact, and the person becomes neuter.
Assuming the addons you want are actually available. I use the following:
- Searchonymous - DeGoogle - AdBlock Plus - Tab Cookies - ScriptSafe - Privacy Badger - LastPass - Search by Image - Remote Torrent Adder - Tampermonkey - Chrometana
Why do I use all of this?
Well, I get annoyed how when I searched Amazon for an 8 port switch, I get emails from them about more switches, and other websites show me ads for switches, even though I no longer want a switch. And then there was the time I was idly curious what an ounce of gold was worth and looked it up, and then other sites (slashdot included) started showing me ads to buy gold (which is a terrible idea in general, by the way.) Searchonymous, DeGoogle, Tab Cookies, and Privacy Badger all work to avoid this.
Plus there are the news websites that will block content after so many visits (tab cookies), the anti-adblock sites (tampermonkey), and sites that show annoying javascript popups asking for your email address (scriptsafe.) And then I like to just be able to click torrent links to download them from my server (remote torrent adder) and right click on images to search using them (search by image) and redirect Windows 10's lame bing searches to Google, (chrometana) which I've fully anonymized via the first two mentioned addons (not to mention, bing sucks.)
The web truly sucks without going through all of this crap, but it just ends up being necessary.
And no, chrome doesn't go slow for me with all of this, even though I run an i7 2600k from 2012, albeit I have 16GB of RAM (I run the occasional virtual machine) which likely makes all the difference, but 8GB should be plenty to avoid problems, and IMO if you still run on 4GB of ram these days...well I just feel sorry for you.
The problem here is that you are treating socialism as an economical system (which is what the original intent for it was)
Socialism is an economic system. That's the whole point of it all. An economy sorts out how you allocate scarce resources, and that is exactly what socialism intends to do (and it does a very poor job of it, I might add.) Anyways, I think Russia's issues with capitalism stem from a big government corruption problem (mainly on the part of the oligarchs and Putin) and not necessarily capitalism itself.
Let's put things in perspective for a second here:
Also, somebody from the former eastern block was telling me about how in Russia they like a lot of things that have been imported there from the west and I mentioned "I guess they like capitalism now", and he replied "they love capitalism, they just don't like democracy", and that makes perfect sense. I read the article recently about how Putin banned images depicting him as a gay clown, and I'm having a difficult time believing that he's legitimately elected to that position. Nonetheless, he's abusing his power and many there may confuse this with capitalism, but this has nothing to do with capitalism; it's just government corruption, the same type of corruption that existed before the fall of the USSR, I might add.
If the world is a zero-sum game, then economies would be completely incapable of growth without conquest, and when you kill a person in battle, instead of dying they just fight on your side.
Besides, if thermodynamics implies zero-sum, then it should be possible to create a perpetual motion machine because you could simply recapture all of the spent energy instead of allowing it to dissipate.
I don't think that's quite what's happening here. Economies can in fact grow too quickly, especially if it's based mostly on speculation; the housing sector in particular is seeing that in a really bad way right now. (The Fed is supposed to raise the interest rates to prevent this, by the way.)
With that in mind, the author of the article seems to be suggesting that people are being employed into jobs that probably will end up a situation where their employer has no means of paying them during the next recession, which is likely to result in one of two things:
1) Older employees with higher salaries get laid off, with some of the newer lower paid ones being kept in their place 2) Company goes belly-up and everybody there loses their job
If those new jobs were automated instead while the company has the cash to buy machinery, this problem could be avoided.
Furthermore, the author makes the point that we're currently below the natural rate of unemployment. And, if automation was truly killing jobs as the doomsayers are predicting, then we should be above the natural rate of unemployment; certainly not below it.
Contrary to common belief on slashdot, not every company would want this, and even then, not every manager would want this for their department. When it comes to management, there are generally two schools of thought:
1) Employees are fundamentally lazy and require constant supervision for maximum productivity 2) Employees are fundamentally motivated to do their job, and if you empower them to make more decisions without needing to consult you, then they do their job more efficiently and provide better customer satisfaction.
Both of these theories are valid, and both are used, though which one is used depends on the particular job and the particular employees that you hire. UPS for example is all about strict time management, so they have policy governing almost every small action you make, including how precisely you'll hold your keys, and for that it makes sense.
Customer service jobs, especially like those of retail workers, tend to benefit more from an empowerment model where they're allowed to make decisions on behalf of the company without the need to consult their manager. Then there are office workers who tend to have much more specialized roles where salaries and benefits are competitive, who not only need empowerment to do their job, but are probably less inclined to work for a given employer if the work environment sucks. Managers of said employees probably don't want this kind of thing because they wouldn't want to lose any of their talent.
That said, if you work in such a job role, it's unlikely you'd ever see anything like this. Though if you worked as a janitor or something, you may very well see this.
National citizenship rules are up to the individual country, and with the exception of the Americas, very few countries actually have birthright citizenship. (Some countries allow you to just buy your way to citizenship; the US does this for example.)
That said, I doubt you'd get most countries to cooperate with the idea that somebody who has never been there before can just suddenly claim the rights to being a national just because they hit an arbitrary age number. Gaining citizenship in the US for example means that, among other things, the US will make diplomatic and military efforts to protect you if you're being wrongfully persecuted by a foreign government. It also means you get diplomatic guarantees that are honored by a large number of other countries, such as visa-free travel.
Whine, whine, whine, Bluestrat fights against a strawman. In reality, you're a racist xenophobic monster who looks up to Hitler as a hero if you consider immigrants only a problem and uselessly and blindly rail for a wall that you believe those same immigrants will pay for.
While I can't speak for GP, I haven't really seen anybody who wants to ban all immigration, rather just illegal immigration.
And for the most part, I agree. Fundamentally, what this comes down to is that civilization isn't possible without rule of law, and rule of law isn't possible without having a jurisdiction. Hence, borders are necessary. And likewise you can't necessarily allow people to come and go as they please without some form of controls, international agreements, etc, otherwise borders don't serve any purpose.
Other than the pointless NYT comment, I'm not sure why the parent is downmodded.
We've been hearing some at least the 80s that the US is somehow on its way down, and each decade a new tip top high growth industry pops up, and whatdya know, the US is dominating it.
I think I see the reason why this keeps on repeating itself over and over: The best and the brightest typically want a high income and strong personal liberties above all else, and Europe, with France being the worst offender, has official policies that make life difficult for people with high incomes (take for example France's 75% tax bracket that caused a lot of people to just leave, resulting in a big decline in tax revenue.)
That said, I really doubt these scientists and engineers will leave the US for France (France's own deep rooted cultural xenophobia notwithstanding) over a single ideological disagreement, just to take an effective giant pay cut and be forced to observe French customs. If that was the case, then the Iraq war should have triggered a mass Exodus.
I didn't see them open accounts without permission (though I wouldn't be surprised if they did) but my mom had a mortgage with another company until Wells Fargo bought the mortgage. Somehow it was worked out that she couldn't pay the payments without physically walking into the bank, and each time they hustled her HARD to open a checking account. She finally opened one, mostly just to get them to shut up, and it turned out that they still had another really old personal loan account that she chapter 7'ed ages ago, and it even had a payment due date listed.
I went down there with her to explain to them that she doesn't owe anything on it, and to take it off of her statements because it was making her nervous. They essentially said to just ignore it, and I didn't understand why until after the scandal broke out: This was all part of a big scheme for ripping off their shareholders.
Interesting. Do tell me, which parts of this article involve any actual engineering discussion? All I see is a bunch of political discussion, with vague references at best to previous engineering efforts, but no actual detail or interesting nuggets of information about how they were pulled off.
That's fine and all, but this topic itself never involves anything either scientific or engineering wise. If the topic was about what was planned and/or how they were going to pull it off, THAT would be relevant, even if it later ventured into NIMBY syndrome. However this never gets into that at all, rather it just stays entirely in the "class warfare" political realm, (hence my reference to a communist newspaper) and then gloating about how some lady took on "the man" and won, as if A) that's never happened before and B) is also morally righteous.
NIMBY applies, but that's not quite why. Rather, in the case of fiber, many want to avoid having lawn refrigerators permanently installed on their property.
Most film/artistic rewards are usually about somehow benefiting those who run them. For example, it's a pretty open secret that you can't win the Oscars without doing some heavy bribery:
In other words, if you've ever wondered why a rather average movie can win so many awards (I'm looking at you, Lost in Translation) it's because somebody paid good money for it to happen.
Both the previous one and the current one are bad in this area (and for what it's worth, Bernie would be even worse than these two.)
The thing is, mercantilism is a concept that has no merit whatsoever. Having a trade deficit can be perfectly healthy for an economy, and historically when countries attempt to correct a trade deficit, they just make things much worse for themselves. Things like tariffs end up costing you much more in the long term than they supposedly save in the short term. The steel tariffs for example cost our economy about $300,000 a year per job it supposedly saves.
What this comes down to is two things: - Domestic production rises and falls almost in lock-step with imports - We're on a global economy. If we restrict our steel imports, then any domestic goods we produce that use steel will cost us more money to produce. Meanwhile, other countries that buy cheaper foreign (to them) steel can now undercut our goods that are produced using steel, which means that we then sell fewer of steel based goods.
For what it's worth, practically all economists agree that tariffs and other trade barriers are bad for all parties involved.
Slashdot Mirror
You're just jealous because after they banned you from New York, people started getting healthier. Though I'm not quite sure why they did that, my guess is because you had your first initial installed on your back and were cited for indecent exposure, B-B-B-Barbara.
Though in all seriousness, what you have are in fact not genitals, otherwise you may as well define an anus as genitals. Instead what you have is an open wound that, as we sit here, is trying to heal itself, and requires constant intervention to prevent that from happening. Sure, it may be fashioned to look similar to genitals, but it's really only a facsimile.
It worked for Bruce Jenner after he killed somebody in a bout of totally reckless driving, and then subsequently blamed it on one of his victims. The media didn't give a shit about that; he just got a sex change and then was immediately branded a hero.
That's not what happens, or even what might happen. What happens is otherwise healthy organs are being removed, and what is put in their place are not genitals at all, and in fact the person has no genitals after the surgery.
You could argue all you want about whether or not that should be socially acceptable, but that is a fact, and the person becomes neuter.
Assuming the addons you want are actually available. I use the following:
- Searchonymous
- DeGoogle
- AdBlock Plus
- Tab Cookies
- ScriptSafe
- Privacy Badger
- LastPass
- Search by Image
- Remote Torrent Adder
- Tampermonkey
- Chrometana
Why do I use all of this?
Well, I get annoyed how when I searched Amazon for an 8 port switch, I get emails from them about more switches, and other websites show me ads for switches, even though I no longer want a switch. And then there was the time I was idly curious what an ounce of gold was worth and looked it up, and then other sites (slashdot included) started showing me ads to buy gold (which is a terrible idea in general, by the way.) Searchonymous, DeGoogle, Tab Cookies, and Privacy Badger all work to avoid this.
Plus there are the news websites that will block content after so many visits (tab cookies), the anti-adblock sites (tampermonkey), and sites that show annoying javascript popups asking for your email address (scriptsafe.) And then I like to just be able to click torrent links to download them from my server (remote torrent adder) and right click on images to search using them (search by image) and redirect Windows 10's lame bing searches to Google, (chrometana) which I've fully anonymized via the first two mentioned addons (not to mention, bing sucks.)
The web truly sucks without going through all of this crap, but it just ends up being necessary.
And no, chrome doesn't go slow for me with all of this, even though I run an i7 2600k from 2012, albeit I have 16GB of RAM (I run the occasional virtual machine) which likely makes all the difference, but 8GB should be plenty to avoid problems, and IMO if you still run on 4GB of ram these days...well I just feel sorry for you.
The problem here is that you are treating socialism as an economical system (which is what the original intent for it was)
Socialism is an economic system. That's the whole point of it all. An economy sorts out how you allocate scarce resources, and that is exactly what socialism intends to do (and it does a very poor job of it, I might add.) Anyways, I think Russia's issues with capitalism stem from a big government corruption problem (mainly on the part of the oligarchs and Putin) and not necessarily capitalism itself.
Let's put things in perspective for a second here:
1980's soviet grocery store: https://youtu.be/oOBFMMbUFI8?t...
Modern russian supermarket: https://youtu.be/pzmZxiIv8mA?t...
Also, somebody from the former eastern block was telling me about how in Russia they like a lot of things that have been imported there from the west and I mentioned "I guess they like capitalism now", and he replied "they love capitalism, they just don't like democracy", and that makes perfect sense. I read the article recently about how Putin banned images depicting him as a gay clown, and I'm having a difficult time believing that he's legitimately elected to that position. Nonetheless, he's abusing his power and many there may confuse this with capitalism, but this has nothing to do with capitalism; it's just government corruption, the same type of corruption that existed before the fall of the USSR, I might add.
If the world is a zero-sum game, then economies would be completely incapable of growth without conquest, and when you kill a person in battle, instead of dying they just fight on your side.
Besides, if thermodynamics implies zero-sum, then it should be possible to create a perpetual motion machine because you could simply recapture all of the spent energy instead of allowing it to dissipate.
Manatees work equally well.
I don't think that's quite what's happening here. Economies can in fact grow too quickly, especially if it's based mostly on speculation; the housing sector in particular is seeing that in a really bad way right now. (The Fed is supposed to raise the interest rates to prevent this, by the way.)
With that in mind, the author of the article seems to be suggesting that people are being employed into jobs that probably will end up a situation where their employer has no means of paying them during the next recession, which is likely to result in one of two things:
1) Older employees with higher salaries get laid off, with some of the newer lower paid ones being kept in their place
2) Company goes belly-up and everybody there loses their job
If those new jobs were automated instead while the company has the cash to buy machinery, this problem could be avoided.
Furthermore, the author makes the point that we're currently below the natural rate of unemployment. And, if automation was truly killing jobs as the doomsayers are predicting, then we should be above the natural rate of unemployment; certainly not below it.
Contrary to common belief on slashdot, not every company would want this, and even then, not every manager would want this for their department. When it comes to management, there are generally two schools of thought:
1) Employees are fundamentally lazy and require constant supervision for maximum productivity
2) Employees are fundamentally motivated to do their job, and if you empower them to make more decisions without needing to consult you, then they do their job more efficiently and provide better customer satisfaction.
Both of these theories are valid, and both are used, though which one is used depends on the particular job and the particular employees that you hire. UPS for example is all about strict time management, so they have policy governing almost every small action you make, including how precisely you'll hold your keys, and for that it makes sense.
Customer service jobs, especially like those of retail workers, tend to benefit more from an empowerment model where they're allowed to make decisions on behalf of the company without the need to consult their manager. Then there are office workers who tend to have much more specialized roles where salaries and benefits are competitive, who not only need empowerment to do their job, but are probably less inclined to work for a given employer if the work environment sucks. Managers of said employees probably don't want this kind of thing because they wouldn't want to lose any of their talent.
That said, if you work in such a job role, it's unlikely you'd ever see anything like this. Though if you worked as a janitor or something, you may very well see this.
National citizenship rules are up to the individual country, and with the exception of the Americas, very few countries actually have birthright citizenship. (Some countries allow you to just buy your way to citizenship; the US does this for example.)
That said, I doubt you'd get most countries to cooperate with the idea that somebody who has never been there before can just suddenly claim the rights to being a national just because they hit an arbitrary age number. Gaining citizenship in the US for example means that, among other things, the US will make diplomatic and military efforts to protect you if you're being wrongfully persecuted by a foreign government. It also means you get diplomatic guarantees that are honored by a large number of other countries, such as visa-free travel.
Whine, whine, whine, Bluestrat fights against a strawman. In reality, you're a racist xenophobic monster who looks up to Hitler as a hero if you consider immigrants only a problem and uselessly and blindly rail for a wall that you believe those same immigrants will pay for.
While I can't speak for GP, I haven't really seen anybody who wants to ban all immigration, rather just illegal immigration.
And for the most part, I agree. Fundamentally, what this comes down to is that civilization isn't possible without rule of law, and rule of law isn't possible without having a jurisdiction. Hence, borders are necessary. And likewise you can't necessarily allow people to come and go as they please without some form of controls, international agreements, etc, otherwise borders don't serve any purpose.
Other than the pointless NYT comment, I'm not sure why the parent is downmodded.
We've been hearing some at least the 80s that the US is somehow on its way down, and each decade a new tip top high growth industry pops up, and whatdya know, the US is dominating it.
I think I see the reason why this keeps on repeating itself over and over: The best and the brightest typically want a high income and strong personal liberties above all else, and Europe, with France being the worst offender, has official policies that make life difficult for people with high incomes (take for example France's 75% tax bracket that caused a lot of people to just leave, resulting in a big decline in tax revenue.)
That said, I really doubt these scientists and engineers will leave the US for France (France's own deep rooted cultural xenophobia notwithstanding) over a single ideological disagreement, just to take an effective giant pay cut and be forced to observe French customs. If that was the case, then the Iraq war should have triggered a mass Exodus.
I didn't see them open accounts without permission (though I wouldn't be surprised if they did) but my mom had a mortgage with another company until Wells Fargo bought the mortgage. Somehow it was worked out that she couldn't pay the payments without physically walking into the bank, and each time they hustled her HARD to open a checking account. She finally opened one, mostly just to get them to shut up, and it turned out that they still had another really old personal loan account that she chapter 7'ed ages ago, and it even had a payment due date listed.
I went down there with her to explain to them that she doesn't owe anything on it, and to take it off of her statements because it was making her nervous. They essentially said to just ignore it, and I didn't understand why until after the scandal broke out: This was all part of a big scheme for ripping off their shareholders.
Interesting. Do tell me, which parts of this article involve any actual engineering discussion? All I see is a bunch of political discussion, with vague references at best to previous engineering efforts, but no actual detail or interesting nuggets of information about how they were pulled off.
That's fine and all, but this topic itself never involves anything either scientific or engineering wise. If the topic was about what was planned and/or how they were going to pull it off, THAT would be relevant, even if it later ventured into NIMBY syndrome. However this never gets into that at all, rather it just stays entirely in the "class warfare" political realm, (hence my reference to a communist newspaper) and then gloating about how some lady took on "the man" and won, as if A) that's never happened before and B) is also morally righteous.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/t...
I'm still trying to figure out how this is an appropriate slashdot topic. This sounds more like a topic for People's World.
NIMBY applies, but that's not quite why. Rather, in the case of fiber, many want to avoid having lawn refrigerators permanently installed on their property.
Most film/artistic rewards are usually about somehow benefiting those who run them. For example, it's a pretty open secret that you can't win the Oscars without doing some heavy bribery:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03...
In other words, if you've ever wondered why a rather average movie can win so many awards (I'm looking at you, Lost in Translation) it's because somebody paid good money for it to happen.
That said, it's best to just ignore them.
Both the previous one and the current one are bad in this area (and for what it's worth, Bernie would be even worse than these two.)
The thing is, mercantilism is a concept that has no merit whatsoever. Having a trade deficit can be perfectly healthy for an economy, and historically when countries attempt to correct a trade deficit, they just make things much worse for themselves. Things like tariffs end up costing you much more in the long term than they supposedly save in the short term. The steel tariffs for example cost our economy about $300,000 a year per job it supposedly saves.
What this comes down to is two things:
- Domestic production rises and falls almost in lock-step with imports
- We're on a global economy. If we restrict our steel imports, then any domestic goods we produce that use steel will cost us more money to produce. Meanwhile, other countries that buy cheaper foreign (to them) steel can now undercut our goods that are produced using steel, which means that we then sell fewer of steel based goods.
For what it's worth, practically all economists agree that tariffs and other trade barriers are bad for all parties involved.
And why Apple used it for their base (while still contributing upstream).
OSX is based on mach, dingleberry.
Guess you haven't noticed that future versions of Android won't run atop Linux. [slashdot.org]
That's not Android, dingleberry.
Er rather, not apps, but native Win32 ARM applications that come in PE binaries.
I'd say only if it runs native ARM apps and has an unlockable bootloader so you can install third party security software.
Well which side is more loose?