Have a good look at how Clinton supporters acted during the election. They would come out and physically attack Trump supporters.
All of them? All 64 million Hillary voters attacked Trump supporters, meanwhile not one of Trump's 62 million supporters ever attacked anyone for anything?
This is the problem with treating politics like a team sports. Your team is the best ever and the other team is shit, even though the reality is you are all the same, only wearing different coloured jerseys.
It's worth noting that if you actually read the article, he doesn't say that the ballots actually were hacked: in fact, what he says is "Were this year’s deviations from pre-election polls the results of a cyberattack? Probably not. I believe the most likely explanation is that the polls were systematically wrong, rather than that the election was hacked."
It does raise an interesting question though. Given a State sponsor powerful enough to execute such a tactic, what would be the minimum effort required to swing an election?
Not suggesting for moment this happened here, but what if in a future close election there is some doubt? It only takes a couple of percent in only a few key counties in small number of key states. How would we deal with such a scenario?
A service based economy cannot survive in the long run. You must create/produce something of value.
Says who? As long as someone is producing something, the services people continue to take a fee moving it through the chain. And there's a lot more money in services than production, which is why all the poor people work in production and rich people work in services.
Singapore and Hong Kong are good examples. They make nothing yet are wealthy and prosperous.
A strong economy is fueled by the movement of money, that is all. And services move money faster than production so will always be the key to success.
Considering that manufacturing is more and more automated all the time, even if Apple bites, I'm still not exactly clear what benefit any of this will have for the average American worker.
Zero. Since you seem to know how it works, you'll know exactly how this plays out.
Tim is smarter than Donald so will win whatever the exchange is. That will likely be some incentive to build a couple of factories here. Apple will put a token factory here or two at less cost than the reward, then after the press dies down, slowly wind them up and continue back on plan A. Apple will get rich. Donald will look good in the news for a week, but everyone except Apple will be worse off.
2. Corporate taxes are comparatively excessive in the US - even compared to evil Socialist European tax systems.
They are excessive on paper, but almost no-one pays them, so the net revenue is much less.
I'd be interested to see a comparison of actual rates paid vs on paper.
China has the manufacturing infrastructure and ridiculously cheap labour, I have a hard time imagining that "tax cuts, incentives and deregulation" are going to make it competitive to move manufacturing to the US.
Donald: Tim, we're going to offer huge tax cuts.
Tim: But Donald, we don't pay any tax, just like you
Tim and Donald both laugh hysterically for hours....
Yes they do. That is exactly what is paying the bills. Or do you think the economy is being propped up by horses and carts and hand picking apples?
Innovation is how we are paying our way today, you are a special kind of fool if you aren't aware of that.
If you're referring to renewable energy, it's because it didn't make economic sense from more than one angle. First, you have to subsidize it...
Yes, yes we've already been over this. You don't know why subsidies exist, nor do you admit to believing in their value even though you benefit from them right now. You've made that clear.
Second, solar power is the sort of industry where the US just isn't competitive any more. Once they figure out how to make cheaper solar panels that do the same thing, then where are you? This is very different from the software companies you referred to earlier.
You realise this industry sector is more than just solar panels right? Actually I don't think you do.
This discussion is pointless when you lack the basic understanding of how subsidies assist emerging industries to reach an economy of scale to become potentially profitable and of net benefit to the economy. But maybe we should just keep our typewriters forever and see where that gets us instead...
Except that another Clinton isn't running the place. I think that was the primary reason for many voters.
That is the silver lining, the Clintons have gone, and hopefully this will force the Dems to clean up their act. Although if we learnt anything from 2012 it's that to succeed, you need to replace your qualified, experienced candidates with loud mouth blowhards. This could be lose-lose.
There is no doubt we will all live to regret this election. The interesting part will be what excuses his supporters will make when it all goes to shit.
Trump will follow in Hillary's, Obama's and Bush's footsteps because that what you have to do in politics to enrich your family
fixed that for you...although Obama possibly less than the others.
Obama has too, it's that his richness is not represented with cold hard cash but reputation. He will be the only president of the modern era who leaves with no cloud over his head.
We're all selfish at the end of the day, that is to be expected, it's whether what you want is shared by what others want. In Obama's case it is, for everyone else, not so much
Trump will follow in Hillary's, Obama's and Bush's footsteps because that what you have to do in politics to succeed.
Funny, I don't remember any white supremacists in Obama's cabinet.
Every cabinet has some unpopular candidates, that's the thing with politics, there is no path where everyone is happy. It simply doesn't exist. Whatever you do, and however you do it someone is perceived as losing. Even if you showered everyone in gold and poverty went away overnight, someone would complain because now they can't find someone to clean their toilet for them, and you'd be despised somewhere.
Well, actually it IS possible to change SOME things.
Yes, and that is done by compromise and concessions, not being a boat rocker. Candidates who claim to be an outsider or have a fresh pair of eyes, are really just naive or deliberately deceitful.
And it would take 10 years to break even just on the battery storage alone, let alone the solar + battery.
So years 11+ are free? Where do I buy one?
Sure, it's not linked to oil prices, but it's still only just verging on "viable" assuming nothing ever goes wrong. Same as every "green" project I've ever done the numbers for.
Trajectory is just as important as position. Solar/Battery are getting cheaper every year. So if it's barely viable now it would follow that it will be absolutely viable soon, and really really viable later on? And we shouldn't bother because why exactly?
You have to feel for Trump voters. He is pretty much flip flopping on every one of the reasons they voted for him. As Obama said "whatever assumptions you bring into the office, this office has a way of waking you up."
Trump will follow in Hillary's, Obama's and Bush's footsteps because that what you have to do in politics to succeed. For some reason most people don't get this and actually think the change candidate can actually do anything different from anyone else.
They aren't going for absolute records (I think rocket sleds do that)
Um, yes they are. The bragging rights go to anything you can get to travel from standing start to 400m as quickly as possible. Currently that is a Top Fueller.
Rocket sleds and jet cars have been tried, but technically they aren't cars, since they aren't driven through the wheels. Nothing road going can get the power applied as quickly as a huge engine driving two wheels.
Remember, 4WD becomes a benefit only if your power exceeds your 2WD grip.
Exactly. And for even at 1000kw, two appropriately sized tyres on dry road can handle the job. 4WD is simply not needed as the world record for getting from 0 to 400m demonstrates. 4WD is for traction through corners and loose/slippery surfaces
As someone who will probably be designing new automatons, the fact that I would have a job does not make me feel at ease if the rest of the country is on the verge of starving.
Why would they starve? If robots do everything then food production and distribution will be free. I don't think this prophet of doom has been thought through properly.
Microsoft and Apple are the only two companies you mentioned founded since 1916. China has changed a wee bit since then. So has the US. I think it's ridiculous to speak of today's environment as it were the environment of pre-First World War US. That world hasn't existed for a long time.
The concept of innovation still exists. Massive technological innovations don't come along every day, the steam engine, the automobile, flight, transistors etc. Successful countries were the ones that got onboard early and led development. In fact one of the main reason the US has been so rich and successful is its early adoption of technology. For some reason this went out the window with the latest technology for reasons that make no sense.
You can be a leader or a follower. Renewable energy is already taking over the world, even if the fossil fuel lobby in the US doesn't want to believe it. I'm not American, and I travel a fair bit. Your attitude to renewable energy sounds exactly like a typewriter salesman from the 80's.
Microsoft and Apple are notable both for their lack of manufacture and the amount of brainpower they bring to their respective industries.
Apple are massively into manufacturing, they do all the design work, and own all the IP, then outsource the labour to cheaper markets. They are the model the US could be doing with renewable energy.
Solar power doesn't require what those big companies have.
Elon Musk says otherwise.
And we've already seen a massive die-off of US companies in solar power at the expense of the Chinese, who fared far better when there was oversupply around 2011.
That is normal for any new industry. Do you think Ford is the only guy that ever tried to make cars? There will a lot of failures before the nut is cracked, but you'll never succeed by giving up.
China has already won in this particular market with the only remaining significant US competitor being Elon Musk's SolarCity which is heavily subsidized and being propped up by Tesla Motors as well.
So do you think Elon knows something you don't, or you know better?
The obvious rebuttal is that the US already tried and just ended up giving a lot of solar tech to the Chinese. Seriously, there's 60 years of development of solar power in the US. Similarly, there's something like 20-30 years of history of solar power subsidies as well. You've had plenty of time to show your strategy can work. It's time to stop wasting our money on this crap.
It's not my strategy, but it's quite clear the decades of effort are finally paying off, and this is the time you want to throw in the towel? Are you the guy that sold your Microsoft shares in 1994?
So what? You still don't get that they have to offer it cheaper than the alternatives or we don't buy it. Meanwhile Germany and China are squandering their wealth on these poor strategies. Works for me.
Time will tell if they are poor or rich. Good luck selling those typewriters...
Utter balls. As you said, "...4WD improves traction..." - and acceleration is limited both by available traction and power. Without sufficient traction, power is wasted. And every tire has a traction limit.
And differentials have efficiency loses. The extra traction is effective on a loose surface, and on corners. It has next to no benefit on a dry road in a straight line.
WTF makes you think that adding power to more wheels doesn't help?
The fact that every top drag car is 2WD. But you could be right and they've all got it wrong...
And pay licensing fees for the rest of life to foreigners.
Would happen anyway. The US has demonstrated considerable prowess at inventing stuff and then technology-transferring it to other countries.
Like Microsoft, Apple, Google, Ford, GM, Boeing etc. All the richest companies are American, because they were the innovators in those fields. America could be a new energy global powerhouse and control a trillion dollar industry that is likely to last centuries. But no, we're too short sighted to see past subsidies=communism! So the Germans and Chinese will have it handed to them on a plate.
Your coffee machine isn't fully automated though, unless there is no more work then pushing a button and the coffee comes out in a disposable cup.
You've never heard of Nespresso? Put a small pod in the machine, push the button, coffee comes out.
Also it will be dispensing different coffee which you may not like as much, so it isn't really a good comparison.
What if you do like it as much, but you just like the human experience of hanging out at a cafe too?
There are plenty of automations available today, that people choose not to use. People still ride bicycles for example. By your logic these should no longer exist.
It's never all or nothing. ATMs and internet banking mean I walk into my bank twice a year. Banks will stay, but lets just say that retail banking is not a career with growth potential.
This is actually a great example. Banking has been vastly automated recently, yet banks still hire a lot of people. They have less tellers, but more customer support people in call centres, and more IT people designing, building and supporting these digital solutions. Automation didn't cause massive unemployment, it just changed the types of jobs.
Same for post offices. I think the last time I was in the local post office was over a year ago. Email and websites take care of most of that now. I don't feel the urge to visit high-end boutique post offices just to satisfy my need for human interaction.
So who designs and build these emails servers and websites? It's not robots...
To answer your other question: Plenty of things have been completely automated away. Cloth washers, buggy drivers, news delivery people, calculators (as in, people who do arithmetic by hand), to name a few. Many others are 90% or more automated, like farmers, longshoreman, accountants, and of course factory workers. And then there are jobs that are or can soon be automated, like truck drivers, teachers, coal miners and cashiers. All of these jobs will be obsoleted by existing or emerging technology.
But we still have people washing clothes, driving buggies and delivering newspapers etc. And just like the steam engine retired a lot of horse related jobs, horses didn't completely go away, nor did jobs. Because new jobs will be created, or who do you think are designing and building and supporting these new automatons?
Slashdot Mirror
Have a good look at how Clinton supporters acted during the election. They would come out and physically attack Trump supporters.
All of them? All 64 million Hillary voters attacked Trump supporters, meanwhile not one of Trump's 62 million supporters ever attacked anyone for anything?
This is the problem with treating politics like a team sports. Your team is the best ever and the other team is shit, even though the reality is you are all the same, only wearing different coloured jerseys.
It's worth noting that if you actually read the article, he doesn't say that the ballots actually were hacked: in fact, what he says is "Were this year’s deviations from pre-election polls the results of a cyberattack? Probably not. I believe the most likely explanation is that the polls were systematically wrong, rather than that the election was hacked."
It does raise an interesting question though. Given a State sponsor powerful enough to execute such a tactic, what would be the minimum effort required to swing an election?
Not suggesting for moment this happened here, but what if in a future close election there is some doubt? It only takes a couple of percent in only a few key counties in small number of key states. How would we deal with such a scenario?
A service based economy cannot survive in the long run. You must create/produce something of value.
Says who? As long as someone is producing something, the services people continue to take a fee moving it through the chain. And there's a lot more money in services than production, which is why all the poor people work in production and rich people work in services.
Singapore and Hong Kong are good examples. They make nothing yet are wealthy and prosperous.
A strong economy is fueled by the movement of money, that is all. And services move money faster than production so will always be the key to success.
Considering that manufacturing is more and more automated all the time, even if Apple bites, I'm still not exactly clear what benefit any of this will have for the average American worker.
Zero. Since you seem to know how it works, you'll know exactly how this plays out.
Tim is smarter than Donald so will win whatever the exchange is. That will likely be some incentive to build a couple of factories here. Apple will put a token factory here or two at less cost than the reward, then after the press dies down, slowly wind them up and continue back on plan A. Apple will get rich. Donald will look good in the news for a week, but everyone except Apple will be worse off.
2. Corporate taxes are comparatively excessive in the US - even compared to evil Socialist European tax systems.
They are excessive on paper, but almost no-one pays them, so the net revenue is much less.
I'd be interested to see a comparison of actual rates paid vs on paper.
How much US tax does Apple actually pay now?
China has the manufacturing infrastructure and ridiculously cheap labour, I have a hard time imagining that "tax cuts, incentives and deregulation" are going to make it competitive to move manufacturing to the US.
Donald: Tim, we're going to offer huge tax cuts.
Tim: But Donald, we don't pay any tax, just like you
Tim and Donald both laugh hysterically for hours....
If I own the robots, why would I let you take their work for free?
Why do you think you will own the robots?
Concepts don't pay the bills.
Yes they do. That is exactly what is paying the bills. Or do you think the economy is being propped up by horses and carts and hand picking apples?
Innovation is how we are paying our way today, you are a special kind of fool if you aren't aware of that.
If you're referring to renewable energy, it's because it didn't make economic sense from more than one angle. First, you have to subsidize it...
Yes, yes we've already been over this. You don't know why subsidies exist, nor do you admit to believing in their value even though you benefit from them right now. You've made that clear.
Second, solar power is the sort of industry where the US just isn't competitive any more. Once they figure out how to make cheaper solar panels that do the same thing, then where are you? This is very different from the software companies you referred to earlier.
You realise this industry sector is more than just solar panels right? Actually I don't think you do.
This discussion is pointless when you lack the basic understanding of how subsidies assist emerging industries to reach an economy of scale to become potentially profitable and of net benefit to the economy. But maybe we should just keep our typewriters forever and see where that gets us instead...
Except that another Clinton isn't running the place. I think that was the primary reason for many voters.
That is the silver lining, the Clintons have gone, and hopefully this will force the Dems to clean up their act. Although if we learnt anything from 2012 it's that to succeed, you need to replace your qualified, experienced candidates with loud mouth blowhards. This could be lose-lose.
There is no doubt we will all live to regret this election. The interesting part will be what excuses his supporters will make when it all goes to shit.
Trump will follow in Hillary's, Obama's and Bush's footsteps because that what you have to do in politics to enrich your family
fixed that for you...although Obama possibly less than the others.
Obama has too, it's that his richness is not represented with cold hard cash but reputation. He will be the only president of the modern era who leaves with no cloud over his head.
We're all selfish at the end of the day, that is to be expected, it's whether what you want is shared by what others want. In Obama's case it is, for everyone else, not so much
Trump will follow in Hillary's, Obama's and Bush's footsteps because that what you have to do in politics to succeed.
Funny, I don't remember any white supremacists in Obama's cabinet.
Every cabinet has some unpopular candidates, that's the thing with politics, there is no path where everyone is happy. It simply doesn't exist. Whatever you do, and however you do it someone is perceived as losing. Even if you showered everyone in gold and poverty went away overnight, someone would complain because now they can't find someone to clean their toilet for them, and you'd be despised somewhere.
Well, actually it IS possible to change SOME things.
Yes, and that is done by compromise and concessions, not being a boat rocker. Candidates who claim to be an outsider or have a fresh pair of eyes, are really just naive or deliberately deceitful.
Maybe he cherry-picked a scenario where his products are actually profitable?
Yeah he should be looking for examples where he can lose money instead. That makes more sense...
And it would take 10 years to break even just on the battery storage alone, let alone the solar + battery.
So years 11+ are free? Where do I buy one?
Sure, it's not linked to oil prices, but it's still only just verging on "viable" assuming nothing ever goes wrong. Same as every "green" project I've ever done the numbers for.
Trajectory is just as important as position. Solar/Battery are getting cheaper every year. So if it's barely viable now it would follow that it will be absolutely viable soon, and really really viable later on? And we shouldn't bother because why exactly?
You have to feel for Trump voters. He is pretty much flip flopping on every one of the reasons they voted for him. As Obama said "whatever assumptions you bring into the office, this office has a way of waking you up."
Trump will follow in Hillary's, Obama's and Bush's footsteps because that what you have to do in politics to succeed. For some reason most people don't get this and actually think the change candidate can actually do anything different from anyone else.
"Total Failure" my fucking ass. Hmmmmm..... the bigoted, ignorant, insane fascist is going to say....
Relax dude it was a joke.
They aren't going for absolute records (I think rocket sleds do that)
Um, yes they are. The bragging rights go to anything you can get to travel from standing start to 400m as quickly as possible. Currently that is a Top Fueller.
Rocket sleds and jet cars have been tried, but technically they aren't cars, since they aren't driven through the wheels. Nothing road going can get the power applied as quickly as a huge engine driving two wheels.
Remember, 4WD becomes a benefit only if your power exceeds your 2WD grip.
Exactly. And for even at 1000kw, two appropriately sized tyres on dry road can handle the job. 4WD is simply not needed as the world record for getting from 0 to 400m demonstrates. 4WD is for traction through corners and loose/slippery surfaces
As someone who will probably be designing new automatons, the fact that I would have a job does not make me feel at ease if the rest of the country is on the verge of starving.
Why would they starve? If robots do everything then food production and distribution will be free. I don't think this prophet of doom has been thought through properly.
Microsoft and Apple are the only two companies you mentioned founded since 1916. China has changed a wee bit since then. So has the US. I think it's ridiculous to speak of today's environment as it were the environment of pre-First World War US. That world hasn't existed for a long time.
The concept of innovation still exists. Massive technological innovations don't come along every day, the steam engine, the automobile, flight, transistors etc. Successful countries were the ones that got onboard early and led development. In fact one of the main reason the US has been so rich and successful is its early adoption of technology. For some reason this went out the window with the latest technology for reasons that make no sense.
You can be a leader or a follower. Renewable energy is already taking over the world, even if the fossil fuel lobby in the US doesn't want to believe it. I'm not American, and I travel a fair bit. Your attitude to renewable energy sounds exactly like a typewriter salesman from the 80's.
Microsoft and Apple are notable both for their lack of manufacture and the amount of brainpower they bring to their respective industries.
Apple are massively into manufacturing, they do all the design work, and own all the IP, then outsource the labour to cheaper markets. They are the model the US could be doing with renewable energy.
Solar power doesn't require what those big companies have.
Elon Musk says otherwise.
And we've already seen a massive die-off of US companies in solar power at the expense of the Chinese, who fared far better when there was oversupply around 2011.
That is normal for any new industry. Do you think Ford is the only guy that ever tried to make cars? There will a lot of failures before the nut is cracked, but you'll never succeed by giving up.
China has already won in this particular market with the only remaining significant US competitor being Elon Musk's SolarCity which is heavily subsidized and being propped up by Tesla Motors as well.
So do you think Elon knows something you don't, or you know better?
The obvious rebuttal is that the US already tried and just ended up giving a lot of solar tech to the Chinese. Seriously, there's 60 years of development of solar power in the US. Similarly, there's something like 20-30 years of history of solar power subsidies as well. You've had plenty of time to show your strategy can work. It's time to stop wasting our money on this crap.
It's not my strategy, but it's quite clear the decades of effort are finally paying off, and this is the time you want to throw in the towel? Are you the guy that sold your Microsoft shares in 1994?
So what? You still don't get that they have to offer it cheaper than the alternatives or we don't buy it. Meanwhile Germany and China are squandering their wealth on these poor strategies. Works for me.
Time will tell if they are poor or rich. Good luck selling those typewriters...
Utter balls. As you said, "...4WD improves traction..." - and acceleration is limited both by available traction and power. Without sufficient traction, power is wasted. And every tire has a traction limit.
And differentials have efficiency loses. The extra traction is effective on a loose surface, and on corners. It has next to no benefit on a dry road in a straight line.
WTF makes you think that adding power to more wheels doesn't help?
The fact that every top drag car is 2WD. But you could be right and they've all got it wrong...
And pay licensing fees for the rest of life to foreigners.
Would happen anyway. The US has demonstrated considerable prowess at inventing stuff and then technology-transferring it to other countries.
Like Microsoft, Apple, Google, Ford, GM, Boeing etc. All the richest companies are American, because they were the innovators in those fields. America could be a new energy global powerhouse and control a trillion dollar industry that is likely to last centuries. But no, we're too short sighted to see past subsidies=communism! So the Germans and Chinese will have it handed to them on a plate.
Your coffee machine isn't fully automated though, unless there is no more work then pushing a button and the coffee comes out in a disposable cup.
You've never heard of Nespresso? Put a small pod in the machine, push the button, coffee comes out.
Also it will be dispensing different coffee which you may not like as much, so it isn't really a good comparison.
What if you do like it as much, but you just like the human experience of hanging out at a cafe too?
There are plenty of automations available today, that people choose not to use. People still ride bicycles for example. By your logic these should no longer exist.
It's never all or nothing. ATMs and internet banking mean I walk into my bank twice a year. Banks will stay, but lets just say that retail banking is not a career with growth potential.
This is actually a great example. Banking has been vastly automated recently, yet banks still hire a lot of people. They have less tellers, but more customer support people in call centres, and more IT people designing, building and supporting these digital solutions. Automation didn't cause massive unemployment, it just changed the types of jobs.
Same for post offices. I think the last time I was in the local post office was over a year ago. Email and websites take care of most of that now. I don't feel the urge to visit high-end boutique post offices just to satisfy my need for human interaction.
So who designs and build these emails servers and websites? It's not robots...
To answer your other question: Plenty of things have been completely automated away. Cloth washers, buggy drivers, news delivery people, calculators (as in, people who do arithmetic by hand), to name a few. Many others are 90% or more automated, like farmers, longshoreman, accountants, and of course factory workers. And then there are jobs that are or can soon be automated, like truck drivers, teachers, coal miners and cashiers. All of these jobs will be obsoleted by existing or emerging technology.
But we still have people washing clothes, driving buggies and delivering newspapers etc. And just like the steam engine retired a lot of horse related jobs, horses didn't completely go away, nor did jobs. Because new jobs will be created, or who do you think are designing and building and supporting these new automatons?