Bernie's policies were very European in nature - the type of thing that in the US are decried as socialist.
Bernie Sanders is explicitly a self-described socialist. The accusation is not one formulated by his American critics, but what Sanders, in his own words, believes himself to be.
Clinton is running again, that should be obvious to all now. This is the funniest thing I've seen in a long, LONG time!
You're right- and bad news for Democrats.
It seems from her own conduct now she intends to compete for the 2020 nomination; She remains in the public eye, is working hard to excuse her previous defeat, and is re-building a fund-raising organization.
However, she is now 70 years old and in poor and declining health. She is now one of the most unpopular politicians in U.S. history, 53% of the public disapproves of her and only 25% approve. She played her best cards in the last round, such as hijacking the Democratic national party fundraising apparatus and using her position as Secretary of State to extort donations to her "charity". Furthermore, the executive branch is no longer in control of the Democrats and can not be bent to her advantage.
If she does not suffer another health crisis she might throw her hat into the ring, but expect her to be eliminated early in the primary.
If a significant portion of the people you personally selected (by your own claims!) to work under you/advise you/etc have been caught doing something illegal, then you are either complicit in that illegal activity or incapable of proper leadership and oversight.
On the contrary, Trump's actions with respect to indicted underlings demonstrate good judgment on his part.
Trump quickly fired both Michael Flynn and Paul Manafort of his own initiative before they came under criminal suspicion by Justice. George Papadopoulos was only ever a bit player in the campaign.
Why would anyone purchase non-existent driving software with their Tesla when, presumably, that feature could be purchased separately later, at a time when it really exists? You are only giving Tesla a free $3,000.00 loan for an indefinite period by ordering it now with the car.
Why such obsession over trivial and routine manufacturing decisions at Tesla?
Two reasons:
First, anything which seems like it could possibly be construed as a setback is cited by the Tesla haters as evidence that the company is certainly doomed to fail. Some conservatives, because they oppose government subsidies and are skeptical of the forecast (and Gore-cast) AGW apocalypse, by association despise Tesla and talk it down at any opportunity. Of course, Tesla is long-term bet on the profitability of mass-producing smart electric cars. Growing pains, such as deviations from forecast production growth, do not inform if that is either a good or bad bet.
Second, Tesla fans are so enthusiastic about the Tesla vehicles, company and Musk that they eagerly lap up any bit of News. Teslarati covers Tesla and SpaceX. Some of the "news" there is like "OMG Tesla prototype with new shade of seat color spotted!" So apparently there is actually a market for this kind of stuff.
I have a wife and kids. We use a lot of batteries. I am not saying I found the best way to do this, but this system works extremely well for us. Advice and opinions interspersed below:
1. If you must buy disposable batteries, read Consumer Reports reviews and buy a top-rated off-brand. Some of the top-rated batteries are a fraction of the price of the two leading brands, Duracell and Energizer. In one review the Ikea batteries were the best deal by a mile.
2. Never use disposable lead-acid batteries unless you have to. One of the few cases now is when I give away stuff which takes batteries. Explaining battery charging to my elderly mother-in-law and getting her to do that would be impossible. Smoke/fire detectors are another case. Also, my UPS from my computer.
3. Buy a battery tester. It is maddening to have a bunch of old or party-used batteries around and not know which are good and which bad. Great battery testers are cheap.
4. Keep in mind that disposable lead-acid batteries suck. They can leak and destroy valuable equipment. They contain lead, a toxic element proven to lower IQ in children even in small quantities. The leaked acid can burn skin, it is especially a hazard to children who do no know to be wary. If you throw them out, the lead in the landfills will be a serious problem for a very long time in the future. Recycling lead-acid batteries is usually a nuisance.
5. For AA, AAA, C, D get NiMH rechargeables. Do not buy in the store, order online, where you can get quality batteries for cheap. Get enough that you can you can have batteries in every device and simultaneously charged/charging backups. NiMH hold a charge for a year+.
6. Get a top-rated smart charger which holds multiple battery types.
7. Consider getting devices purpose-built for Lithium cells. The 18650 cells will charge in the same charger, linked above, as used for NiMH cells. Make sure to get a quality Lithium battery, the cheap no-name ones are junk. The 18650 LED flashlights are fantastic. Avoid Lithium 14500 batteries, they are an accident waiting to happen since they are 3.7 volts but the size of a 1.5 volt AA battery.
8. One key to making the system work is to keep all the battery stuff, spare batteries, testers, watch batteries etc together in one place. I use a rubbermaid plastic box. Rubber bands and ziploc bags group and isolate loose batteries and along with the box compartmentalize leaks. Keep the charger plugged in in one place. Organization is essential, because if you are digging through draws, shelves and cabinets looking for batteries or the meter wondering where you left it then you are wasting time and driving yourself mad.
I blend them with a lot of salt and plenty of strong vinegar and freeze them in squeeze-bottles until it is time to consume.... The sauce is a crowd pleaser and it is very tasty.
Sounds fantastic. Can you please give us the recipe, or at least approximate proportions?
The pattern goes even further back. It conclusively disproves the myth that progressive governments would somehow be worse for the economy than conservative ones; in fact, the evidence points in the opposite direction (once you factor in the time it takes before you see the results).
Absolute horseshit.
The Republican Congress set the agenda and in Bill Clinton's own words, the era of big governments was over. Whereas later Obamacare would be enacted, back then Hillary's socialized medicine scam was utterly smashed. It was an era dominated by Republican pro-growth fiscal policy and prominently anti-progressive government. Lefty growsed constantly back then about conservative control of policy and predicted the economy would collapse and the poor would starve. Then there was a huge economic boom and now Progressives claim credit for it.
All leftist politicians have very forward-thinking 5 and 10 year plans, conveniently past the next election. They are like the guy daily wearing a sign that the world will end tomorrow...always tomorrow.
Well, won't that be great, that also happens to be the same day the climate apocalypse begins.
Autopliot steering directly into a concrete barrier at highway speeds in broad daylight is an enormous bug. Multiple sensors must have detected the barrier under those conditions, yet the onboard AI chose to drive into it. This looks like a great big hole in Tesla's software validation process and badly faulty software. A concrete barrier directly in front of the car is not some one-in-a-zillion anomalous corner case. Autopilot software architecture must be very badly flawed; Even if the lane-detection function misguided the car, there should have been an emergency obstacle-avoidance function which superseded lane-following.
Regardless of Tesla's public efforts to downplay the barrier collision bug, it seems likely that their top priority now inside the company would be to fix it and, more meta, overhaul their software architecture and validation procedures.
1) It's unlikely we'd be able to bring back enough individuals to avoid inbreeding and thus a population that would soon go extinct again.
You know neither how much genetic variation could be uncovered from extant specimens nor how much is necessary for survival.
Cheetahs are essentially clones and have survived extinction for 10K years since their last evolutionary bottleneck. Their genetic variation is consistent with a historical reduction in total population to a single pregnant individual.
2) It's likely that the reasons that it went extinct in the first place haven't been corrected.
They were deliberately exterminated.
3) It diverts resources from saving species that are on the verge of extinction, of which there are many. It's far easier to save something that is still alive than to bring it back.
Economics does not work that way. There is no basis for asserting that de-extinction would lessen support for preserving existing species. That is a fictional trade-off. While there must be a trade off between de-extinction funding and alternatives among total global expenditures, the combination of goods and services substituted for to fund de-extinction in their stead could by any: An orange spray-on tan, your girlfriend's birth control pills, a neighbor's Toyota Corolla, the next season of the Roseanne show.
The Trump administration is expected to launch an effort in coming days to weaken greenhouse gas emissions and fuel economy standards for automobiles, handing a victory to car manufacturers...
It is a victory for consumers, who would otherwise be forced to pay much higher prices for automobiles.
The extreme warming predictions have proven wrong. We are heading into a solar grand minimum. The only people who need to worry about global warming are the alarmists who have staked their careers on it.
Here is the article which the Nature summary linked in the./ summary summarizes.
The Nature summary links to that article and states "The new AI tool, developed by Marwin Segler, an organic chemist and artificial-intelligence researcher at the University of Münster in Germany..." Weirdly, Segler is not listed as an author on the article and none of the article's authors are at Münster. Even stranger, Segler is not even cited.
Well the EU just removed all remaining doubt that the UK made the right decision with Brexit. Nobody wants to be governed by assholes. The EU has revealed its true nature in the Brexit negotiations.
That question reveals a complete misunderstanding of circumstances. Its is not that long-standing skills are being obsoleted; That has been going on for centuries, yet never substantially harmed the employability of the middle class. The new change is that low-IQ individuals are being priced out of the market by smarter machines. Retraining does no good if there is nothing you are capable learning which a machine can not perform better.
I suspect that Facebook has always know that their privacy settings controls were confusing and difficult to use, in fact made them that way on purpose, the more so to profit by selling customer information. They have resorted only now to fixing that preemptively under looming threats of fines and litigation.
Zuckerberg is the Bill Gates of his era. There have always been two Silicon Valley archetypes. Steve Jobs and Elon Musk embody one, those with a powerful ambition to realize something great by means of business. Musk wants futuristic transportation for mankind. Jobs wanted awesome product design for the masses. Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg, on the other hand, represent pure profiteering. Microsoft products are an abomination which achieved market dominance only because of strategic marketing and Facebook is gross and addictive. The choice between "We can make this better for our customers" or "we can make another dollar" defines who is which.
You can kind of tell who is which type according to who is admired. You see a lot of intense hero worship with Jobs and Musk. Little to none with Gates and Zuckerberg.
I am ok with video surveillance only with these protections:
- Non-exclusive access. If the police or any government agency can see the video feed, then the feed must be made public and everyone gets to stream it. - Cameras only in public spaces
Even put together, wind and photovoltaic solar are supplying less than 1 per cent of global energy demand. From the International Energy Agency’s 2016 Key Renewables Trends, we can see that wind provided 0.46 per cent of global energy consumption in 2014, and solar and tide combined provided 0.35 per cent. Remember this is total energy, not just electricity, which is less than a fifth of all final energy, the rest being the solid, gaseous, and liquid fuels that do the heavy lifting for heat, transport and industry....
Meanwhile, world energy demand has been growing at about 2 per cent a year for nearly 40 years. Between 2013 and 2014, again using International Energy Agency data, it grew by just under 2,000 terawatt-hours.
If wind turbines were to supply all of that growth but no more, how many would need to be built each year? The answer is nearly 350,000, since a two-megawatt turbine can produce about 0.005 terawatt-hours per annum. That’s one-and-a-half times as many as have been built in the world since governments started pouring consumer funds into this so-called industry in the early 2000s.
At a density of, very roughly, 50 acres per megawatt, typical for wind farms, that many turbines would require a land area greater than the British Isles, including Ireland. Every year. If we kept this up for 50 years, we would have covered every square mile of a land area the size of Russia with wind farms. Remember, this would be just to fulfil the new demand for energy, not to displace the vast existing supply of energy from fossil fuels, which currently supply 80 per cent of global energy needs.
follow the link, it only gets better:
Their trick is to hide behind the statement that close to 14 per cent of the world’s energy is renewable, with the implication that this is wind and solar. In fact the vast majority — three quarters — is biomass (mainly wood), and a very large part of that is ‘traditional biomass’; sticks and logs and dung burned by the poor in their homes to cook with. Those people need that energy, but they pay a big price in health problems caused by smoke inhalation.
Slashdot Mirror
Bernie's policies were very European in nature - the type of thing that in the US are decried as socialist.
Bernie Sanders is explicitly a self-described socialist. The accusation is not one formulated by his American critics, but what Sanders, in his own words, believes himself to be.
Clinton is running again, that should be obvious to all now. This is the funniest thing I've seen in a long, LONG time!
You're right- and bad news for Democrats.
It seems from her own conduct now she intends to compete for the 2020 nomination; She remains in the public eye, is working hard to excuse her previous defeat, and is re-building a fund-raising organization.
However, she is now 70 years old and in poor and declining health. She is now one of the most unpopular politicians in U.S. history, 53% of the public disapproves of her and only 25% approve. She played her best cards in the last round, such as hijacking the Democratic national party fundraising apparatus and using her position as Secretary of State to extort donations to her "charity". Furthermore, the executive branch is no longer in control of the Democrats and can not be bent to her advantage.
If she does not suffer another health crisis she might throw her hat into the ring, but expect her to be eliminated early in the primary.
If a significant portion of the people you personally selected (by your own claims!) to work under you/advise you/etc have been caught doing something illegal, then you are either complicit in that illegal activity or incapable of proper leadership and oversight.
On the contrary, Trump's actions with respect to indicted underlings demonstrate good judgment on his part.
Trump quickly fired both Michael Flynn and Paul Manafort of his own initiative before they came under criminal suspicion by Justice. George Papadopoulos was only ever a bit player in the campaign.
the average person commits three felonies a day....
There is a book about this.
Why would anyone purchase non-existent driving software with their Tesla when, presumably, that feature could be purchased separately later, at a time when it really exists? You are only giving Tesla a free $3,000.00 loan for an indefinite period by ordering it now with the car.
Why such obsession over trivial and routine manufacturing decisions at Tesla?
Two reasons:
First, anything which seems like it could possibly be construed as a setback is cited by the Tesla haters as evidence that the company is certainly doomed to fail. Some conservatives, because they oppose government subsidies and are skeptical of the forecast (and Gore-cast) AGW apocalypse, by association despise Tesla and talk it down at any opportunity. Of course, Tesla is long-term bet on the profitability of mass-producing smart electric cars. Growing pains, such as deviations from forecast production growth, do not inform if that is either a good or bad bet.
Second, Tesla fans are so enthusiastic about the Tesla vehicles, company and Musk that they eagerly lap up any bit of News. Teslarati covers Tesla and SpaceX. Some of the "news" there is like "OMG Tesla prototype with new shade of seat color spotted!" So apparently there is actually a market for this kind of stuff.
Awesome, thanks much. Will be planting peppers here ASAP then.
There's no way the rampant corruption and cronyism around construction in New York City does not have a massive role to play in all this.
This article, from the New York Times, supports your point:
The Most Expensive Mile of Subway Track on Earth
I have a wife and kids. We use a lot of batteries. I am not saying I found the best way to do this, but this system works extremely well for us. Advice and opinions interspersed below:
1. If you must buy disposable batteries, read Consumer Reports reviews and buy a top-rated off-brand. Some of the top-rated batteries are a fraction of the price of the two leading brands, Duracell and Energizer. In one review the Ikea batteries were the best deal by a mile.
2. Never use disposable lead-acid batteries unless you have to. One of the few cases now is when I give away stuff which takes batteries. Explaining battery charging to my elderly mother-in-law and getting her to do that would be impossible. Smoke/fire detectors are another case. Also, my UPS from my computer.
3. Buy a battery tester. It is maddening to have a bunch of old or party-used batteries around and not know which are good and which bad. Great battery testers are cheap.
4. Keep in mind that disposable lead-acid batteries suck. They can leak and destroy valuable equipment. They contain lead, a toxic element proven to lower IQ in children even in small quantities. The leaked acid can burn skin, it is especially a hazard to children who do no know to be wary. If you throw them out, the lead in the landfills will be a serious problem for a very long time in the future. Recycling lead-acid batteries is usually a nuisance.
5. For AA, AAA, C, D get NiMH rechargeables. Do not buy in the store, order online, where you can get quality batteries for cheap. Get enough that you can you can have batteries in every device and simultaneously charged/charging backups. NiMH hold a charge for a year+.
6. Get a top-rated smart charger which holds multiple battery types.
7. Consider getting devices purpose-built for Lithium cells. The 18650 cells will charge in the same charger, linked above, as used for NiMH cells. Make sure to get a quality Lithium battery, the cheap no-name ones are junk. The 18650 LED flashlights are fantastic. Avoid Lithium 14500 batteries, they are an accident waiting to happen since they are 3.7 volts but the size of a 1.5 volt AA battery.
8. One key to making the system work is to keep all the battery stuff, spare batteries, testers, watch batteries etc together in one place. I use a rubbermaid plastic box. Rubber bands and ziploc bags group and isolate loose batteries and along with the box compartmentalize leaks. Keep the charger plugged in in one place. Organization is essential, because if you are digging through draws, shelves and cabinets looking for batteries or the meter wondering where you left it then you are wasting time and driving yourself mad.
I blend them with a lot of salt and plenty of strong vinegar and freeze them in squeeze-bottles until it is time to consume. ... The sauce is a crowd pleaser and it is very tasty.
Sounds fantastic. Can you please give us the recipe, or at least approximate proportions?
Don't give up on peppers just because overdoing it can cause harm. Just don't overdo it.
"The dose makes the poison"
- - Paracelsus (aka Philippus Aureolus Theophrastus Bombastus von Hohenheim)
More money spent on science is always a good thing...
Proof that Lefty does not comprehend economic scarcity, trade-offs, and marginal utility.
The pattern goes even further back. It conclusively disproves the myth that progressive governments would somehow be worse for the economy than conservative ones; in fact, the evidence points in the opposite direction (once you factor in the time it takes before you see the results).
Absolute horseshit.
The Republican Congress set the agenda and in Bill Clinton's own words, the era of big governments was over. Whereas later Obamacare would be enacted, back then Hillary's socialized medicine scam was utterly smashed. It was an era dominated by Republican pro-growth fiscal policy and prominently anti-progressive government. Lefty growsed constantly back then about conservative control of policy and predicted the economy would collapse and the poor would starve. Then there was a huge economic boom and now Progressives claim credit for it.
Recall that despite Clinton's scandals with Monica, he left the country with a surplus rather than a deficit
Clinton's great achievement was to acquiesce to a Republican leadership in Congress which practiced spending restraint.
Of course, the majority of Republican congress people today are gutless, lying spendweasels, but for a brief moment in modern times they were not.
All leftist politicians have very forward-thinking 5 and 10 year plans, conveniently past the next election. They are like the guy daily wearing a sign that the world will end tomorrow...always tomorrow.
Well, won't that be great, that also happens to be the same day the climate apocalypse begins.
Autopliot steering directly into a concrete barrier at highway speeds in broad daylight is an enormous bug. Multiple sensors must have detected the barrier under those conditions, yet the onboard AI chose to drive into it. This looks like a great big hole in Tesla's software validation process and badly faulty software. A concrete barrier directly in front of the car is not some one-in-a-zillion anomalous corner case. Autopilot software architecture must be very badly flawed; Even if the lane-detection function misguided the car, there should have been an emergency obstacle-avoidance function which superseded lane-following.
Regardless of Tesla's public efforts to downplay the barrier collision bug, it seems likely that their top priority now inside the company would be to fix it and, more meta, overhaul their software architecture and validation procedures.
Apparently a woman in some sort of black head covering
We should not jump to conclusions here, but given that description it is likely that she was a Catholic Nun.
1) It's unlikely we'd be able to bring back enough individuals to avoid inbreeding and thus a population that would soon go extinct again.
You know neither how much genetic variation could be uncovered from extant specimens nor how much is necessary for survival.
Cheetahs are essentially clones and have survived extinction for 10K years since their last evolutionary bottleneck. Their genetic variation is consistent with a historical reduction in total population to a single pregnant individual.
2) It's likely that the reasons that it went extinct in the first place haven't been corrected.
They were deliberately exterminated.
3) It diverts resources from saving species that are on the verge of extinction, of which there are many. It's far easier to save something that is still alive than to bring it back.
Economics does not work that way. There is no basis for asserting that de-extinction would lessen support for preserving existing species. That is a fictional trade-off. While there must be a trade off between de-extinction funding and alternatives among total global expenditures, the combination of goods and services substituted for to fund de-extinction in their stead could by any: An orange spray-on tan, your girlfriend's birth control pills, a neighbor's Toyota Corolla, the next season of the Roseanne show.
from the /. summary:
The Trump administration is expected to launch an effort in coming days to weaken greenhouse gas emissions and fuel economy standards for automobiles, handing a victory to car manufacturers...
It is a victory for consumers, who would otherwise be forced to pay much higher prices for automobiles.
The extreme warming predictions have proven wrong. We are heading into a solar grand minimum. The only people who need to worry about global warming are the alarmists who have staked their careers on it.
Here is the article which the Nature summary linked in the ./ summary summarizes.
The Nature summary links to that article and states "The new AI tool, developed by Marwin Segler, an organic chemist and artificial-intelligence researcher at the University of Münster in Germany..." Weirdly, Segler is not listed as an author on the article and none of the article's authors are at Münster. Even stranger, Segler is not even cited.
Well the EU just removed all remaining doubt that the UK made the right decision with Brexit. Nobody wants to be governed by assholes. The EU has revealed its true nature in the Brexit negotiations.
from the summary
Can we come up with a way to retrain workers?
That question reveals a complete misunderstanding of circumstances. Its is not that long-standing skills are being obsoleted; That has been going on for centuries, yet never substantially harmed the employability of the middle class. The new change is that low-IQ individuals are being priced out of the market by smarter machines. Retraining does no good if there is nothing you are capable learning which a machine can not perform better.
I suspect that Facebook has always know that their privacy settings controls were confusing and difficult to use, in fact made them that way on purpose, the more so to profit by selling customer information. They have resorted only now to fixing that preemptively under looming threats of fines and litigation.
Zuckerberg is the Bill Gates of his era. There have always been two Silicon Valley archetypes. Steve Jobs and Elon Musk embody one, those with a powerful ambition to realize something great by means of business. Musk wants futuristic transportation for mankind. Jobs wanted awesome product design for the masses. Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg, on the other hand, represent pure profiteering. Microsoft products are an abomination which achieved market dominance only because of strategic marketing and Facebook is gross and addictive. The choice between "We can make this better for our customers" or "we can make another dollar" defines who is which.
You can kind of tell who is which type according to who is admired. You see a lot of intense hero worship with Jobs and Musk. Little to none with Gates and Zuckerberg.
I am ok with video surveillance only with these protections:
- Non-exclusive access. If the police or any government agency can see the video feed, then the feed must be made public and everyone gets to stream it.
- Cameras only in public spaces
Here is a counter-argument to that kind of stuff:
Matt Ridley quoted at Coyote Blog here:
follow the link, it only gets better: