On a technology side, we should be celebrating Samsung trying to innovate.
With all new technological implementations the initial price is high. We've known this forever. Why be surprised and so hateful? Criticism is one thing, but the amount of disdain here has crossed the line from constructive criticism to... Something approaching hate. And not just hate for Samsung or the product, but hate or disgust or disdain for those willing and able to take a chance on such 1st generation of a consumer technology.
Talk about first world problems. Oh no! They didn't make exactly what I wanted! How dare anyone find it appealing!
Get over yourselves. Be glad that someone is trying to innovate in a new direction. That they are willing to take risks. Not just with a new technology and new solutions, but with something they know will be out of reach of the majority of consumers.
So no mention that this rule was originally passed without a cost-benefit analysis?
Nor a mention that the cost is over $9 Billion dollars, but the actual benefit from mercury reduction is $4 - $6 Million?
Nothing about the Supreme Court kicking it back and saying an analysis has to be done?
Or that the benefits calculated in the new analysis is a sham? Where 99% of the benefits are "co-benefits" and are a by-product of mercury reduction?
If the government wants to regulate and achieve those co-benefits, then that's what they should say. Otherwise, if they say they're regulating X, but 99% of the benefits are not because of the regulation of X specifically, then that's not transparent. That's something that is easily manipulated. That's not accountable. That's not how government should operate.
Aside from transparency and accountability, we shouldn't want government passing health and safety regulations regardless of the cost.
Lots of R's do not like Trump, but have started to notice that there are 2 sides to the Trump Presidency... His words... And then the deeds of his administration. The potential for those deeds and the known disaster coming if Clinton won is why R's held their noses and voted for Trump. They're still holding their noses, but mostly smiling at the same time with the belief that it's a net positive and way better than Clinton.
The W that got us into the longest war/occupation in US history? Yeah, I imagine people were worried about him being president - they were right to be.
The Korean War has not ended.
Is Trump the closest to accomplishing that as any US President?
This does not mean he's close... Just that maybe he's done something new that no one else has accomplished. Whether it'll work out or not is to be seen, but thus far, it's better than repeating the same failed policies over and over again.
The Washington Free Beacon paid Fusion GPS for research on Republican candidates, not just Trump. That effort ended before Steele started working for Fusion and produced his Dossier. There is nothing that shows that Steele's dossier work was anything other than independent of the previous WFB work.
Anytime you're wanting to deliver very important news to your boss and you want to be sure that important news is delivered well and understood, especially if the boss is new, you do things very deliberately.
Which is something done by anyone that wants a presentation to the boss to actually be successful and not go off on tangents. Its amazingly easy for presentations to get off track, it takes a lot of planning beforehand to be sure you can deliver the message you want. Its hard enough when you know the boss is a hard ass, its even harder when its a new boss that you really dont know.
Depending on what you're looking for, Fossil just started releasing a lot of new AndroidWear watches. Not only under the Fossil name, but many of their subsidiaries too.
In addition, TAG Heuer has a very nice (and expensive!!!) watch as well.
Not sure I would call the LG Watch Sport the flagship watch anymore. Its also limited based on mobile carrier.
When someone says "I want to talk about X", they usually don't mean "feel free to say anything at all about X". I doubt Google meant "free free to call your colleagues biologically inferior, inviting lawsuits when you give a less than stellar evaluation of them".
They clearly meant that they wanted to talk about ways to make it easier for women and minorities, not their biological suitability.
Did he say women were biologically inferior?
Did he suggest alternative ways to increase diversity?
Slashdot Mirror
He was making a "guesstimate" and stated as such. That's not lying in the least. It's more accurate to claim you're lying by calling him a liar.
He could be right... Or he could be low... Or he could be high. I'd gamble he's right on or low.
On a technology side, we should be celebrating Samsung trying to innovate.
With all new technological implementations the initial price is high. We've known this forever. Why be surprised and so hateful? Criticism is one thing, but the amount of disdain here has crossed the line from constructive criticism to ... Something approaching hate. And not just hate for Samsung or the product, but hate or disgust or disdain for those willing and able to take a chance on such 1st generation of a consumer technology.
Talk about first world problems. Oh no! They didn't make exactly what I wanted! How dare anyone find it appealing!
Get over yourselves. Be glad that someone is trying to innovate in a new direction. That they are willing to take risks. Not just with a new technology and new solutions, but with something they know will be out of reach of the majority of consumers.
Something can be a good and useful service, but still not patentable.
Even your quote is purposefully misleading.
It doesn't give "less weight to the potential health gains" of the targeted pollutant, but of "co-benefits".
In this case, only $4 - $6 million of the $37 - $90 Billion in benefits actually came from mercury reduction.
So no mention that this rule was originally passed without a cost-benefit analysis?
Nor a mention that the cost is over $9 Billion dollars, but the actual benefit from mercury reduction is $4 - $6 Million?
Nothing about the Supreme Court kicking it back and saying an analysis has to be done?
Or that the benefits calculated in the new analysis is a sham? Where 99% of the benefits are "co-benefits" and are a by-product of mercury reduction?
If the government wants to regulate and achieve those co-benefits, then that's what they should say. Otherwise, if they say they're regulating X, but 99% of the benefits are not because of the regulation of X specifically, then that's not transparent. That's something that is easily manipulated. That's not accountable. That's not how government should operate.
Aside from transparency and accountability, we shouldn't want government passing health and safety regulations regardless of the cost.
"Apologist" is a loaded term.
If there really is a debate, and he's right, then you could say he's a "realist" and those on the other side were "scaremongers".
Lots of R's do not like Trump, but have started to notice that there are 2 sides to the Trump Presidency... His words... And then the deeds of his administration. The potential for those deeds and the known disaster coming if Clinton won is why R's held their noses and voted for Trump. They're still holding their noses, but mostly smiling at the same time with the belief that it's a net positive and way better than Clinton.
The W that got us into the longest war/occupation in US history? Yeah, I imagine people were worried about him being president - they were right to be.
The Korean War has not ended.
Is Trump the closest to accomplishing that as any US President?
This does not mean he's close... Just that maybe he's done something new that no one else has accomplished. Whether it'll work out or not is to be seen, but thus far, it's better than repeating the same failed policies over and over again.
Even if taking about the 2A, the right to open a gun does include the right to manufacture your own.
There are restrictions on selling, but that's different.
Security isn't that tough, but it eludes thousands of organizations.
It's not something I can say I've thought deeply on, but I think I want to disagree with such a statement.
For starters, vigilance is not easy.
By attendance... Do they mean absences without using leave? If that's the case, they should be fired.
No, the dossier was not paid for by Republicans.
The Washington Free Beacon paid Fusion GPS for research on Republican candidates, not just Trump. That effort ended before Steele started working for Fusion and produced his Dossier. There is nothing that shows that Steele's dossier work was anything other than independent of the previous WFB work.
Or...
Anytime you're wanting to deliver very important news to your boss and you want to be sure that important news is delivered well and understood, especially if the boss is new, you do things very deliberately.
Which is something done by anyone that wants a presentation to the boss to actually be successful and not go off on tangents. Its amazingly easy for presentations to get off track, it takes a lot of planning beforehand to be sure you can deliver the message you want. Its hard enough when you know the boss is a hard ass, its even harder when its a new boss that you really dont know.
Depending on what you're looking for, Fossil just started releasing a lot of new AndroidWear watches. Not only under the Fossil name, but many of their subsidiaries too.
In addition, TAG Heuer has a very nice (and expensive!!!) watch as well.
Not sure I would call the LG Watch Sport the flagship watch anymore. Its also limited based on mobile carrier.
Lets review...
No, he did not say women were biologically inferior.
Stating that a group has less interest in a subject area does not mean that individuals from that group are inferior in the subject.
When someone says "I want to talk about X", they usually don't mean "feel free to say anything at all about X". I doubt Google meant "free free to call your colleagues biologically inferior, inviting lawsuits when you give a less than stellar evaluation of them".
They clearly meant that they wanted to talk about ways to make it easier for women and minorities, not their biological suitability.
Did he say women were biologically inferior? Did he suggest alternative ways to increase diversity?