The following statement cannot be overblown: None of Microsoft's business what I do with my computer. If they refuse to respect their customers it won't be long before they have none.
Well you say that, but the Facebook example says otherwise...
Ok, so Windows == Microsoft owns the OS and can collect anything they want about you and your computer.
Linux == Free and no one gives a shit what you run on it. It is your computer and your OS to do with as YOU see fit.
Got it!
Unless you want some sort of standardisation, then good luck.
Re: Hammerheads in Vermont
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 1
So what, that doesn't make my assertion any less true.
You know in language words actually mean things. If you meant something else you should use different words.
Re:Hammerheads in Vermont
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 1
10% should pay for national defense, border guards and a minimum federal court system. That's it. Everything else, canceled.
Good. So I plan my attack on your country based on your inability to spend more than 10% of your GDP on defence? If I spend 20% of your GDP on my attack effort then it's a pretty cheap price to own your country. Good luck selling that at the next election.
Or conversely, I start up a smaller government movement and demand the 10% large government lobby be replaced with a 5% small government. Then a new small government lobby starts up and demands the 5% large government lobby be replaced with a 2% small government. Where does it end?
Read the second part of your reply back and see if you can find the flaw in reasoning/math. I'll wait. Hint: You are agreeing with me. The more you trust your government the more money/control you give it. Eurotrash trust their governments too much (as do we, just not to the same degree).
Ah ok, so you don't want to ever trust your government? I agree that you shouldn't automatically trust anybody, but in an ideal world I'd like government I can trust, wouldn't you? Actually I have that now. Having worked for the government I have a good idea how it works. Sure it's not perfect, and it's not that efficient, but it delivers some pretty good outcomes when you consider the alternatives (eg compare your quality of life to that of someone with no effective government, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq etc.)
Re:Hammerheads in Vermont
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 1
% of GDP spent by the central government. Higher bad, lower good.
So what is the range that you consider good? Can you actually specify an actual figure? 1%? 10% 50%? Must it only fit within this range to be acceptable?
That % is in fact an excellent proxy how much a population trusts it's government. Not what they say, what they do.
Yet doesn't even stand up to the first test. Right now, there seems to be little trust, yet the GDP% spent on central government is much lower than WW2 when it (and trust in the nation state) was at record levels.
This "small government" logic doesn't seem to be very well though out...
There's a legal saying that "hard cases make bad law".
Oh there's a saying? Oh well, you automatically win then.
In the meantime, any way to crack my iPhone can be used by bad guys as well as good guys.
Ooh they'll crack you phone and then what? See photos you took of yourself with your willy in your hand?
I understand that you're a coward, and have sympathy, but you're talking about giving up privacy for an infinitesimal increase in security against a particular unlikely threat.
No I'm not. But nice attempt at a strawman.
Even though I spelt it out quite clearly the first time I'll do it again for your benefit Rather than continually hate on authorities, I'd be more interested in hearing what possible solutions exist for a law enforcement to function within the expectations of society.
Arabs don't exist, right. Neither do Egyptians. Myths of a fantasy land where people live in the desert.
Having just come back from the Middle East and can assure you that most of the people live in towns and cities.
And if you took the time to RTFA, this site is not built anywhere where people are living nor can grow food. So stop being so ignorant.
My household average is 350kwh-450kwh per month, for FOUR people. So yeah, 360kwh/month per person is more than enough anyone not living in the USA.
Re: Hammerheads in Vermont
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 1
" I don't support minimum wage increases (it causes unemployment increases and...)"
Not sure how else one should interpret this...
Re:Hammerheads in Vermont
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 1
A government that isn't too centralized and spending energy to...
This doesn't improve the response any. What is considered adequate de-centralisation? How does one measure such a thing?
and a large government that is focused on improving infrastructure.
That'd be communist wouldn't it? That is unacceptable...
Re:Hammerheads in Vermont
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 1
I'm going to call bullshit. Take all the countries with higher minimum wage than the US from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... Now compare unemployment rates with the US here:
Years old data from Wikipedia is probably not a very accurate representation, considering how quickly unemployment and exchange rates have swung recently. (Although if the US unemployment really is 5%, then Obama can't be as bad as a lot of people make out.)
The point is that there are enough countries with decent minimum wages and low unemployment to dismiss your correlation between the two.
Re:Might as well start calling him President Trump
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 1
"Americans are immature and stupid and can't be trusted to be smart".
Well to be fair a good chunk of the population are.
Yea, thanks, we only saved the world twice in the past 100 years, thank you very much...
True, but the Government can declared that land "nature reserve."
And even better if there's a meltdown, because that will guarantee it stays a reserve for thousands of years (This is joke, I fully support nuclear energy)
Social isolation for Linux geeks is a stereotype which...
I think you missed the point...
Re:Might as well start calling him President Trump
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 1
If the contest ends up being Trump vs. Clinton, my vote is automatic Trump, without a second thought.
As a foreigner looking from the outside, the Republicans don't seem to have a viable candidate. They're all extremists which garner a certain level of support during the primaries, but come the main race, the overall vote tends for moderation.
Clinton will beat any Republican because she'll convince enough people that she's not a nutbag. Regardless of her shady past or her policies, this is generally how elections are won (Obama, Bush, Clinton etc, all positioned themselves as the less-crazy option). Trump might have a half a chance if he could reel in his ego, but that will be his undoing.
I'd like to see Sanders get in, but don't think America is mature enough for him. That means it'll probably be Clinton v Trump with Clinton pissing it in.
Re:Hammerheads in Vermont
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 1
Libertarianism is the right of the individual, as opposed to socialist's rights of the collective. I'm the anti-Spock:
The rights of the one out-weigh the rights of the many, or the few.
People who say that usually haven't been in situation where someone more psychopathic has the same opinion and is in the same room...
Slashdot Mirror
Best post of the entire thread, yet still only modded 3...
If you help perpetuate such environments, you are being an Enabler in an abusive relationship. Stop doing that.
Sure, as you as you front up with the millions in migrations costs we'll do just that...
The following statement cannot be overblown: None of Microsoft's business what I do with my computer. If they refuse to respect their customers it won't be long before they have none.
Well you say that, but the Facebook example says otherwise...
Ok, so Windows == Microsoft owns the OS and can collect anything they want about you and your computer.
Linux == Free and no one gives a shit what you run on it. It is your computer and your OS to do with as YOU see fit.
Got it!
Unless you want some sort of standardisation, then good luck.
So what, that doesn't make my assertion any less true.
You know in language words actually mean things. If you meant something else you should use different words.
10% should pay for national defense, border guards and a minimum federal court system. That's it. Everything else, canceled.
Good. So I plan my attack on your country based on your inability to spend more than 10% of your GDP on defence? If I spend 20% of your GDP on my attack effort then it's a pretty cheap price to own your country. Good luck selling that at the next election.
Or conversely, I start up a smaller government movement and demand the 10% large government lobby be replaced with a 5% small government. Then a new small government lobby starts up and demands the 5% large government lobby be replaced with a 2% small government. Where does it end?
Read the second part of your reply back and see if you can find the flaw in reasoning/math. I'll wait. Hint: You are agreeing with me. The more you trust your government the more money/control you give it. Eurotrash trust their governments too much (as do we, just not to the same degree).
Ah ok, so you don't want to ever trust your government? I agree that you shouldn't automatically trust anybody, but in an ideal world I'd like government I can trust, wouldn't you? Actually I have that now. Having worked for the government I have a good idea how it works. Sure it's not perfect, and it's not that efficient, but it delivers some pretty good outcomes when you consider the alternatives (eg compare your quality of life to that of someone with no effective government, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq etc.)
% of GDP spent by the central government. Higher bad, lower good.
So what is the range that you consider good? Can you actually specify an actual figure? 1%? 10% 50%? Must it only fit within this range to be acceptable?
That % is in fact an excellent proxy how much a population trusts it's government. Not what they say, what they do.
Yet doesn't even stand up to the first test. Right now, there seems to be little trust, yet the GDP% spent on central government is much lower than WW2 when it (and trust in the nation state) was at record levels.
This "small government" logic doesn't seem to be very well though out...
There's a legal saying that "hard cases make bad law".
Oh there's a saying? Oh well, you automatically win then.
In the meantime, any way to crack my iPhone can be used by bad guys as well as good guys.
Ooh they'll crack you phone and then what? See photos you took of yourself with your willy in your hand?
I understand that you're a coward, and have sympathy, but you're talking about giving up privacy for an infinitesimal increase in security against a particular unlikely threat.
No I'm not. But nice attempt at a strawman.
Even though I spelt it out quite clearly the first time I'll do it again for your benefit
Rather than continually hate on authorities, I'd be more interested in hearing what possible solutions exist for a law enforcement to function within the expectations of society.
Arabs don't exist, right. Neither do Egyptians. Myths of a fantasy land where people live in the desert.
Having just come back from the Middle East and can assure you that most of the people live in towns and cities.
And if you took the time to RTFA, this site is not built anywhere where people are living nor can grow food. So stop being so ignorant.
My household average is 350kwh-450kwh per month, for FOUR people. So yeah, 360kwh/month per person is more than enough anyone not living in the USA.
" I don't support minimum wage increases (it causes unemployment increases and...)"
Not sure how else one should interpret this...
A government that isn't too centralized and spending energy to...
This doesn't improve the response any. What is considered adequate de-centralisation? How does one measure such a thing?
and a large government that is focused on improving infrastructure.
That'd be communist wouldn't it? That is unacceptable...
I'm going to call bullshit. Take all the countries with higher minimum wage than the US from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... Now compare unemployment rates with the US here:
Years old data from Wikipedia is probably not a very accurate representation, considering how quickly unemployment and exchange rates have swung recently. (Although if the US unemployment really is 5%, then Obama can't be as bad as a lot of people make out.)
The point is that there are enough countries with decent minimum wages and low unemployment to dismiss your correlation between the two.
"Americans are immature and stupid and can't be trusted to be smart".
Well to be fair a good chunk of the population are.
Yea, thanks, we only saved the world twice in the past 100 years, thank you very much...
Point proven.
If maths is not your strong point, then google can help. http://www.techinsider.io/map-...
So if 1.1m people divvy up 500MW of power, doesn't that mean on average each user gets 500W.
Yes
Sounds low...
Only if all 1.1 million people are all home at exactly the same time.
455 watts is 76.44 kwh per week. I use approximately 100-120kwh per week for my one bedroom apartment.
Go USA!!!
I use 90-100kwh per week in my 4 bedroom house with 4 people and a dog.
So they're destroying 6,178 acres of vegetation...
No. No they aren't. It's in the desert dummy.
Even if you covered every square inch of the planet in solar panels, you still couldn't generate enough power to meet demand.
You're not very good at this are you: http://www.techinsider.io/map-...
A modern reactor shares very little in design with Chernobyl, so no.
The economics make absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Only if you don't understand all of them.
True, but the Government can declared that land "nature reserve."
And even better if there's a meltdown, because that will guarantee it stays a reserve for thousands of years (This is joke, I fully support nuclear energy)
That space of land could feed over 6,000 people if properly arable, or house 2.8 million people. That second figure holds a lot of weight:
It's in the fucking desert, where you can't grow food nor do people want live there.
To supply power for Europe
No-one stupid enough to suggest that. Until now...
Social isolation for Linux geeks is a stereotype which...
I think you missed the point...
If the contest ends up being Trump vs. Clinton, my vote is automatic Trump, without a second thought.
As a foreigner looking from the outside, the Republicans don't seem to have a viable candidate. They're all extremists which garner a certain level of support during the primaries, but come the main race, the overall vote tends for moderation.
Clinton will beat any Republican because she'll convince enough people that she's not a nutbag. Regardless of her shady past or her policies, this is generally how elections are won (Obama, Bush, Clinton etc, all positioned themselves as the less-crazy option). Trump might have a half a chance if he could reel in his ego, but that will be his undoing.
I'd like to see Sanders get in, but don't think America is mature enough for him. That means it'll probably be Clinton v Trump with Clinton pissing it in.
Libertarianism is the right of the individual, as opposed to socialist's rights of the collective. I'm the anti-Spock: The rights of the one out-weigh the rights of the many, or the few.
People who say that usually haven't been in situation where someone more psychopathic has the same opinion and is in the same room...