You ostensibly have a sports car (a pretty one at that) but the Model S is a sedan and it will still spank your '86 in the 0-60 (3.9s vs 6.0s) and 1/4 mile (12.4s vs 14.7s). It all depends what the machine is optimized for.
Chances are, Feinstein and Rogers are the goddamn traitorous RINGLEADERS, not puppets!
It could be they're doing this to cement their power in the Congress. But it does make them vulnerable to electoral challenges, and they don't seem like particularly clever folks who could have gotten to where they are on their own. Useful idiots, perhaps.
For example how do I know that medicine is safe to take. I am unable to test it for myself, not being a biochemist.
Do you do an EE analysis on the electrical products you buy, or do you look for the UL (Underwriters Laboratories) sticker? Drugs are an interesting example here because the FDA has crowded out any private provider, where it's hard to compete against "free", especially when "private non-profit" is illegal.
a mechanical engineer to decide whether a car was safe
I have no choice but to rely on the government for many things, because I am unable to get the required expertise to be completely self-reliant.
Have you ever checked on whether a doctor was board certified, whether a bike helmet was ANSI or Snell rated, or whether a manufacturing company was ISO9001?
The only time you don't have a choice is when the government has come in to take over an industry. Ask the organic food folks, where the third party certifying organizations have been driven out of business by the feds, who allow non-organic material in foods that are allowed to be labeled as "organic" by them (but were not by the independent parties).
Please look up the meaning of the word "manifesto".
Why do people cite narrow dictionary definitions and ignore actual usage while treating any narrow reading of a dictionary entry as definitive? Here's a list of notable political manifestos - most of them are several pages, if not entire books.
"Statement of principles" or "mission statements" are the kinds of words used to describe short declarations of goals.
Then again, using "manifesto" has gotten Snowden a bunch of press today, so perhaps he is the wiser.
Eventually you have a poor class that doesn't have the freedom to do anything at all and a rich class that can do anything.
Actually that's the empirical result of the current fascist policies in the US. Of course, authoritarian socialists call this 'capitalism' to try to re-frame the debate as one between fascism and socialism, but since fascism is a flavor of socialism, socialism actually has the burden of proof vs. capitalism.
Let's try doing away with corporations first, and then we can have the debate about which is working better. I suspect capitalism will win, but it will always fail if governments pick the winners and losers, because that destroys the basis of capitalism, which is information flow based on money. From an information theory perspective, socialism has several bottlenecks that will always result in a sub-optimal solution, but so does fascism.
And that's just the utilitarian perspective, for those who wholly discount freedom and are indifferent to violence. Since the socialists/fascists have taken control of the money supply, minimum wage has fallen from an inflation-adjusted $22/hr to $7 per hour (in 2013 dollars), so they have quite a lot to answer for if they want to claim superiority on class distinctions.
That's at best an abstract, so using such words doesn't help and reflect poor usage (which surprises me - who added the word 'manifesto' anyway?). Snowden and his supporters should adopt the words that will do his cause the maximum benefit. Though I don't think we know enough to say for sure that he chose this word.
I'm so used to kernelnewbies having a great changelog that it's surprising to not see it updated for 3.12. I hope everything is going OK for the maintainers there!
Its just silly to think he should have reported to them that they were corrupt and/or incompetent.
Exactly right. We'll probably also find out in a future Snowden briefing that NSA is actively blackmailing some of the members of those committees. Remember, they have all of their phone calls, locations, and financial records. Probably close to their primaries or the general election.
There are a few problems going on together here. First, the safer nuclear reactors are prohibited by the government. Branson has been trying to bankroll integral fast reactors for several years and the Obama administration has continually stonewalled him. It was the Clinton administration that killed the commercialization of that technology in the first place. Not surprisingly, Gore took a personal interest in that (no conflict of interest there, right?) Third, the Feds nationalized nuclear insurance in the 60's. What private insurer would put their money behind a light water reactor with sketchy maintenance? Why would they charge the same premiums to a meltdown-able (I know, not a word) reactor as a meltdown-proof design like integral fast reactors or thorium reactors? Why would the power companies be able to afford the insurance on rusting barrels of nuclear waste next to the river that they just store there? That's both an insurance problem and one of the feds promising they'll take care of the waste (but never doing it). Because they can consume that waste, integral fast reactors would be a business opportunity all their own if the economics of the nuclear industry wasn't wildly distorted by the government(s). Even in England where they're building a new reactor (well, the Chinese and French are) the cost of power is double that of a coal plant. But, then again, the coal plants don't have to pay a dime towards the externalities they introduce by spewing both radioactivity (so much more than any nuclear incident ever did) and mercury and other heavy metals.
We don't have a technology problem here and we don't have an economics problem either. It's know-nothing wonder-mutts screwing with those that have us in this position.
And yet few will admit that the reason that it's a problem is that there's power for sale. Getting rid of the money just won't ever happen, short of executing people for making illegal campaign donations, and who wants to live in that society?
While we have big multinational corporations battling over who gets to own the monopoly, perhaps a few will stop to ask, "why if we just didn't grant these monopolies?" Even fewer would ask if those big multinationals could even exist without the corporate welfare grants those monopolies provide.
I know, "dogs and cats living together!", we can solve the problem of corruption because we're smarter than all the other people who have ever lived...
When elections are won or lost based a few percentage points, then giving a 8.7% boost to a campaign can certainly sway the outcome.
Possible, but very unlikely. The effect has been studied and quantified by political scientists. I don't have a copy of a paper handy, but very roughly speaking, it's a matter of diminishing returns. The first doubling of money can sway the election, say 10%, then you double it again, and gain 5%, then double it again, and gain 2.5%, and by the time you've outspent your opponent by 16x you're barely moving the needle at all.
What they did find is that the candidates who are ultimately more popular with the voters turn out to have been more popular with the donors. So the politician who outspent/outraised his opponent by 4:1 and won the election did so because he was more popular.
Since the total possible amount of spending can never get above a certain threshold, it's actually more efficient to be a good candidate and spend the money you do have to get that word out, than to try to spend your way to victory while being an asshole.
There are exceptions, but the rule holds most of the time. Frankly if you're corrupt enough, you might as well just bribe the election officials or voting machine vendors rather than keep piling money into above-board campaign tactics that don't really yield returns.
Seemingly not at all if you're Microsoft. Not being able to code doesn't mean that much.
Not just being able - Microsoft has some very competent coders. Heck, look at the legend behind "Code Complete".
It's just like when a developer decides to build a housing development full of cheap tract houses - he knows exactly what kind of quality he's building, and it's nothing to brag about, but it gets the homes done to the point that they can be sold, and for half the cost of doing it 'right'.
Precisely. In fact, we should celebrate the division of labor.
There are guys who are really good at refactoring, guys who are really good at debugging, guys who are really good at designing, etc.
People get the most satisfaction by excelling at their talents, so that's the direction the industry should be heading.
I've only ever known one 'god' programmer (he wrote and debugged a network stack and file server in Honeywell assembly on paper, typed it onto magtape, and flew to Arizona to test it, where it worked on the first load and went into production) but it's not worth designing cultures or systems around one-in-a-million people; we should do the best we can for most of the people, which will, in turn, do the most to help the industry.
Prosecutors will charge old ladies playing bridge under RICO, but then again those old ladies don't pay protection^Wbribes^W^Wdonate to campaigns the way the big boys do.
Wow - blast from the past! Where I lived, the labels were confetti patterned (from Sam Goody, maybe?). Man, those were terrible. But, hey, cheap dups among friends.
Slashdot Mirror
My car can do 140 mph with only 200 horse power.
You ostensibly have a sports car (a pretty one at that) but the Model S is a sedan and it will still spank your '86 in the 0-60 (3.9s vs 6.0s) and 1/4 mile (12.4s vs 14.7s). It all depends what the machine is optimized for.
Don't race a Model S for pink slips.
Now that we know about the BullRun backdoors, maybe they should go back after them for grossly abusive billing.
Chances are, Feinstein and Rogers are the goddamn traitorous RINGLEADERS, not puppets!
It could be they're doing this to cement their power in the Congress. But it does make them vulnerable to electoral challenges, and they don't seem like particularly clever folks who could have gotten to where they are on their own. Useful idiots, perhaps.
Actually, with IFR, we have a materials technology problem.
How so? The prototype reactor ran for a couple years without incident.
For example how do I know that medicine is safe to take. I am unable to test it for myself, not being a biochemist.
Do you do an EE analysis on the electrical products you buy, or do you look for the UL (Underwriters Laboratories) sticker? Drugs are an interesting example here because the FDA has crowded out any private provider, where it's hard to compete against "free", especially when "private non-profit" is illegal.
a mechanical engineer to decide whether a car was safe
So you don't go by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety crash test ratings? Consumer Reports even includes their data and adds additional criteria like comfort and maintenance ratings.
I have no choice but to rely on the government for many things, because I am unable to get the required expertise to be completely self-reliant.
Have you ever checked on whether a doctor was board certified, whether a bike helmet was ANSI or Snell rated, or whether a manufacturing company was ISO9001?
The only time you don't have a choice is when the government has come in to take over an industry. Ask the organic food folks, where the third party certifying organizations have been driven out of business by the feds, who allow non-organic material in foods that are allowed to be labeled as "organic" by them (but were not by the independent parties).
Since eggs should be opened at the little end, big-endians actually have the burden of proof.
There's no question begging here - see the linked textbook definition of fascism I bothered to include in my comment.
Well, doing away corporations won't work out in the end ... the next one should give us the separation of state and economy.
How do you square these two claims? Corporations are creations of a government.
There's the issue.
What issue?
Please look up the meaning of the word "manifesto".
Why do people cite narrow dictionary definitions and ignore actual usage while treating any narrow reading of a dictionary entry as definitive? Here's a list of notable political manifestos - most of them are several pages, if not entire books.
"Statement of principles" or "mission statements" are the kinds of words used to describe short declarations of goals.
Then again, using "manifesto" has gotten Snowden a bunch of press today, so perhaps he is the wiser.
So, expect the quality of computers to go downhill over the next few years, but we'll do out best to fix it in software?
If you use modern hard drives, you've already accepted high error rates corrected by software.
Eventually you have a poor class that doesn't have the freedom to do anything at all and a rich class that can do anything.
Actually that's the empirical result of the current fascist policies in the US. Of course, authoritarian socialists call this 'capitalism' to try to re-frame the debate as one between fascism and socialism, but since fascism is a flavor of socialism, socialism actually has the burden of proof vs. capitalism.
Let's try doing away with corporations first, and then we can have the debate about which is working better. I suspect capitalism will win, but it will always fail if governments pick the winners and losers, because that destroys the basis of capitalism, which is information flow based on money. From an information theory perspective, socialism has several bottlenecks that will always result in a sub-optimal solution, but so does fascism.
And that's just the utilitarian perspective, for those who wholly discount freedom and are indifferent to violence. Since the socialists/fascists have taken control of the money supply, minimum wage has fallen from an inflation-adjusted $22/hr to $7 per hour (in 2013 dollars), so they have quite a lot to answer for if they want to claim superiority on class distinctions.
I saw it mentioned this morning on CNN.
So, is this manifesto a good thing or a bad thing?
wc tells me this 'manifesto' is 273 words.
That's at best an abstract, so using such words doesn't help and reflect poor usage (which surprises me - who added the word 'manifesto' anyway?). Snowden and his supporters should adopt the words that will do his cause the maximum benefit. Though I don't think we know enough to say for sure that he chose this word.
I'm so used to kernelnewbies having a great changelog that it's surprising to not see it updated for 3.12. I hope everything is going OK for the maintainers there!
Its just silly to think he should have reported to them that they were corrupt and/or incompetent.
Exactly right. We'll probably also find out in a future Snowden briefing that NSA is actively blackmailing some of the members of those committees. Remember, they have all of their phone calls, locations, and financial records. Probably close to their primaries or the general election.
Snowden legal defense fund is at: 1snowqQP5VmZgU47i5AWwz9fsgHQg94Fa.
This friendly computer support tip brought to you by your local NSA extension service.
There are a few problems going on together here. First, the safer nuclear reactors are prohibited by the government. Branson has been trying to bankroll integral fast reactors for several years and the Obama administration has continually stonewalled him. It was the Clinton administration that killed the commercialization of that technology in the first place. Not surprisingly, Gore took a personal interest in that (no conflict of interest there, right?) Third, the Feds nationalized nuclear insurance in the 60's. What private insurer would put their money behind a light water reactor with sketchy maintenance? Why would they charge the same premiums to a meltdown-able (I know, not a word) reactor as a meltdown-proof design like integral fast reactors or thorium reactors? Why would the power companies be able to afford the insurance on rusting barrels of nuclear waste next to the river that they just store there? That's both an insurance problem and one of the feds promising they'll take care of the waste (but never doing it). Because they can consume that waste, integral fast reactors would be a business opportunity all their own if the economics of the nuclear industry wasn't wildly distorted by the government(s). Even in England where they're building a new reactor (well, the Chinese and French are) the cost of power is double that of a coal plant. But, then again, the coal plants don't have to pay a dime towards the externalities they introduce by spewing both radioactivity (so much more than any nuclear incident ever did) and mercury and other heavy metals.
We don't have a technology problem here and we don't have an economics problem either. It's know-nothing wonder-mutts screwing with those that have us in this position.
And yet few will admit that the reason that it's a problem is that there's power for sale. Getting rid of the money just won't ever happen, short of executing people for making illegal campaign donations, and who wants to live in that society?
While we have big multinational corporations battling over who gets to own the monopoly, perhaps a few will stop to ask, "why if we just didn't grant these monopolies?" Even fewer would ask if those big multinationals could even exist without the corporate welfare grants those monopolies provide.
I know, "dogs and cats living together!", we can solve the problem of corruption because we're smarter than all the other people who have ever lived...
When elections are won or lost based a few percentage points, then giving a 8.7% boost to a campaign can certainly sway the outcome.
Possible, but very unlikely. The effect has been studied and quantified by political scientists. I don't have a copy of a paper handy, but very roughly speaking, it's a matter of diminishing returns. The first doubling of money can sway the election, say 10%, then you double it again, and gain 5%, then double it again, and gain 2.5%, and by the time you've outspent your opponent by 16x you're barely moving the needle at all.
What they did find is that the candidates who are ultimately more popular with the voters turn out to have been more popular with the donors. So the politician who outspent/outraised his opponent by 4:1 and won the election did so because he was more popular.
Since the total possible amount of spending can never get above a certain threshold, it's actually more efficient to be a good candidate and spend the money you do have to get that word out, than to try to spend your way to victory while being an asshole.
There are exceptions, but the rule holds most of the time. Frankly if you're corrupt enough, you might as well just bribe the election officials or voting machine vendors rather than keep piling money into above-board campaign tactics that don't really yield returns.
Seemingly not at all if you're Microsoft. Not being able to code doesn't mean that much.
Not just being able - Microsoft has some very competent coders. Heck, look at the legend behind "Code Complete".
It's just like when a developer decides to build a housing development full of cheap tract houses - he knows exactly what kind of quality he's building, and it's nothing to brag about, but it gets the homes done to the point that they can be sold, and for half the cost of doing it 'right'.
Precisely. In fact, we should celebrate the division of labor.
There are guys who are really good at refactoring, guys who are really good at debugging, guys who are really good at designing, etc.
People get the most satisfaction by excelling at their talents, so that's the direction the industry should be heading.
I've only ever known one 'god' programmer (he wrote and debugged a network stack and file server in Honeywell assembly on paper, typed it onto magtape, and flew to Arizona to test it, where it worked on the first load and went into production) but it's not worth designing cultures or systems around one-in-a-million people; we should do the best we can for most of the people, which will, in turn, do the most to help the industry.
"What are you, some kind of nut? Who do you think you are?"
Dun, dun, dunnnnn -- Captain Chaos!
"I'm going to destroy Android, because it's a stolen product."
Jesus. Young Steve Jobs was pretty cool. Old, dying Steve Jobs was just an asshole whom young Steve Jobs would have mocked.
Prosecutors will charge old ladies playing bridge under RICO, but then again those old ladies don't pay protection^Wbribes^W^Wdonate to campaigns the way the big boys do.
3-pack tapes
Wow - blast from the past! Where I lived, the labels were confetti patterned (from Sam Goody, maybe?). Man, those were terrible. But, hey, cheap dups among friends.