Ditto to this. I stopped updating Windows 7 a few years ago when some critical update was incompatible with dual-boot, and haven't had a problem since. Works fine for an occasional-use gaming machine.
would have spent is another matter, for another discussion.
better spent is what I took issue with in GP's post. There are definitely things that individuals and the free market are better at judging, but I would not count infrastructure, basic education, and disaster/first response among those, to list a few off the top of my head. Considering that Greece was verging on broke a year ago, it wouldn't have been able to pay for any of its programs whatsoever, including both the waste-of-money ones as well as the essential ones. If the level of tax dodging in Greece really is at the levels that was reported in the media last year, I doubt cutting the waste would have been sufficient to put them in the black.
You can blame debt for the crisis, but debt was merely the acute symptom: the underlying disease was insufficient tax revenue to balance expenses. Whether that would better be fixed by increasing tax or decreasing expenditure is hard to say, but I'd expect it's a bit of both. Cutting waste AND fixing tax enforcement would have done a lot to put them in a better position, more than taking either of those actions alone.
More generally, I don't think the state should do everything. However, there are a minimum number of services it should offer, it being in the best position to do so, and when tax revenue is so low you can't even offer those, then I'd say that increasing taxes will produce a net benefit, in contrast with GP's implication that raising taxes never improves things.
One, your rant is interesting because your sole fix for a really bad economy is taxing people more. Can you name a single example where taxing people more, improved things?
Sure - if Greece had actually collected the taxes due, rather than just saying "meh" and relying on debt, they'd be in a better situation than they are now.
... The rich can always avoid taxes, where the middle class cannot....
False. Top 1% pay almost half the taxes in the US. They may have many ways of dodging *specific* taxes, but per capita they contribute far more than anyone else.
bla bla bla Welfare bla bla economic slaves bla bla bla
o_O
As for housing, HUD and Government subsidies PROMOTE being locked into poverty. Because if you earn enough money, you get kicked out and lose your subsidies. It is a vicious circle of poverty and dependency, all in the name of compassion (and the voting block for the same policies that you are supporting). Yes, I want to toss grandma off a cliff, and kill kittens (Just getting the inevitable Ad Hominem out of the way).
True - there are definitely some perverse incentives in the system we have today. The safety net has to be remade into a sliding scale, such that starting to support yourself doesn't leave you worse off than you were.
I want people to have opportunity, not guarantees. 40+ years of war on poverty, and we are no better off than before. Repeating the same thing over and over again expecting different results is insane.
The war on poverty I remember from the 90s was global, and on a global level we definitely have improved. Not sure what the US-only statistics are, although I think we're better off than the media and politicians seem to want us to believe.
It's not wrong - most food has been modified in some way, and I mean more than just selective breeding. A hundred years ago they were using chemicals and radioactivity to mutate the plant, as opposed to CRISPR. Your default never existed, and your conspiracy theories about the industry buying the government are laughable.
Probably because they have no idea if they're GMO or not. If they knew they would put it on there because they could charge more without it costing them anything - free profit. If they don't know already, it'll cost them more to find out, if even possible.
Theory works fine - as I said, if not labeled otherwise then assume it contains GMO, and buy the stuff that says "Non-GMO" which is guaranteed to not be GMO. You get your non-GMOs and the rest of us don't have to pay for spurious process control and labeling.
Food is already labeled - just by the stuff that says "non-GMO". Assume anything without that label *is* GMO, as companies who aren't using GMOs are incentivized by the price premium non-GMO food gets to make sure their products are labeled as such.
No need to label GMO food as GMO when all the non-GMO food is already labeled as non-GMO, that would be redundant at the very least.
The page is one big chart showing theoretical speeds, and recommending getting 802.11ac. 802.11a is the 5Ghz standard that was discarded for dead since it doesn't penetrate through walls. Whoops! That's why for 10 years, hardly any router or NIC supported it. It's kinda useless in most homes. For a while, 5Ghz was billed as a way to do high-speed over short distances. Since people may have multiple network devices in one room or cubicle, you could put a 5Ghz router in each one. The range is so short they won't interfere with each other. But that was too expensive, and the moderate speed boost wasn't worth it.
802.11a might be unsuitable for large homes but it works great in small apartments, especially considering the 2.4 GHz band is way overloaded by neighbors, half of whom don't understand the concept of "non-overlapping channels". You exaggerate how short it's range is: 802.11a goes fine through a couple of sheetrock walls. It's also supported by macbooks, chromebooks, and to some degree by either camp's phones, so I definitely wouldn't say "hardly any".
I thought the movies were a travesty where they removed most of the good qualities of the books and instead tried to make it a dramatic, exciting action-adventure. Just re-read the books for the Nth time, however, and I think they're great.
De gustibus non est disputatum - you and I are clearly looking for different qualities in our entertainment. Thankfully there's more than enough to go around.
And back on topic: I tried listening to a podcast on fast-forward for a grand total of about a minute, and had to turn it off. Felt way too much like work, and I like to savor things slowly. Some recent movies are paced a little fast for my taste as well, as they feel jarring and abrupt, and without any foundation.
I'll believe that. Maybe it's just that in my area landlords can afford to be lazy, since demand is high, and so they either staple stuff to the outside or just say no.
Of course, I don't expect to see municipal fiber here either, much as I'd like to...
Personally, I'd say the former both because it's simpler and because I find any assumption that BEGINS with premise that the government owns it and "gives it" to the citizens both troubling morally and entirely skewed from the fundamental 'government of the people' principle of the United States Constitution.
Except that, at least in the case of the morgage interest rate deduction, isn't "encouraging desired behavior" exactly the justification the government gives for that deduction? The US govt wants to encourage and enable home ownership, so they grant a credit on the taxes the government is due to anyone trying to own a home.
In general it's not "either, or", as although some deductions are credits, not all are - business expense deductions springs to mind. Drug testing people for deducting business expenses would therefore be unconscionable, but testing people for getting a credit for mortgage interest paid *might* be acceptable.
Unfortunately, as GP implies, there's a good number of MDUs with no conduits whatsoever (caveat: anecdotal experience). I live in one, for instance, and you can see the TV coax cable stapled to the side of the building going to the different rooms of each apartment. No idea how the phone is routed - I assume they just strung it inside the wall like an electrical cable when the building was built in the 50s.
In that situation, bashing holes in the walls is about the only choice.
This is yet another example of stupidity in the open source community. You don't get to define how a word sounds. The way you write it defines how it's said.
Right, because English is so consistent in its link between spelling and pronounciation.
Night, knight, fox, faux, through, thorough, "the dove dove into the bushes"... I could go on for a while. English is *dominated* by words pronounced without regard to the spelling.
You give one argument against eliminating the corporate tax and counter it in detail, but another argument given frequently is the following: if corporations are not taxed, then anyone with a good accountant will incorporate themselves, pipe everything to this company instead of to themselves personally, and thereby live tax free.
I believe this already happens in Belgium, where individuals set up companies to buy the house they want so as to avoid tax at the time of purchase. Companies pay capital gains at sale instead, but since many Belgians are sedentary, that'll likely only be an issue for the estate after they're dead.
To make eliminating corporate tax workable you'd at the very least have to introduce a broad VAT-type system where inter-business transactions are also taxed. That, or set up a very elaborate benefits-in-kind detection scheme.
Maybe that's true in the US, but I'd expect that Italy's more like Belgium, where Architecture is an engineering discipline. In Belgium the architects were in the same chem, physics, thermo, calc, and other engineering classes as the rest of us, so they've got the same base as any EE, ME, etc.
I recall a "keyboard" from 5 or 10 years ago that projected the keys on a flat surface and tracked your fingers to register key presses. Wasn't one of the conclusions that typing on a hard, unyielding surface is a good way to end up with sore and strained fingers?
The vast majority of Men I know would be arguably offended if you started referring to them as Boy
Probably yes, if you're speaking directly to an individual and you refer to them using "boy", as in, "Boy, go get me a drink!". However, I believe GP was thinking more of something along the lines of "Are you going out with the boys tonight?", which I don't think would bother most people.
Of course, can't say I've met anyone who would object if I used "girls" in that same sentence, so I'm not sure what all the fuss is about.
Can anyone with access to the papers share what's new about "advanced pulse compression noise" radar versus classic noise radar?
Noise radar itself, i.e. transmitting white noise and then correlating returns with the original noise signal to find the targets, is not a new technology. I don't doubt there's something new here, but the articles are too light on details to be able to tell what.
Also, bit of a stretch to call it "encryption"... Methinks that was the managers or the journalists.
Maybe no "trickery" in the case of your router, but definitely in GP's, who said he had to set it to Japan.
But yes, it is your fault if you set it to channel 14 and cause interference, especially seeing as you know you shouldn't be able to. Broadcom does not indemnify you for any interference you cause. This is on top of the ethical point that you're willfully causing interference and don't seem to care.
I have a commercial access point that comes with no restrictions whatsoever as to which channels you can set it to, which is why it also comes with a warning label saying it must be set up by a professional. If I put it on channel 14 of the 2.4 GHz band, or on any but the lowest 4 of the 5 GHz channels, then I'm responsible for the interference and it'll be me who the FCC fines.
What? Best channel on the list, it virtually never sees any contention from countless annoying wifi-enabled phones/tablets/laptops passing by!
Methinks you misunderstand GP, be that accidentally or purposely. Either way, the reason channel 14 is so clear in the US is because it's illegal to use it. That channel overlaps with licensed spectrum users, and by using 14 in the US you'll be interfering with them. Depending on the level of interference you may one day get a visit from the FCC, along with a heavy fine.
There's a reason you have to trick your router to get it to allow you to use 14.
If socialized medicine was the sole answer, America would have a wonderful healthcare system, because our government spends more on healthcare than any other country in the world, and is near the top in per-capita government medical spending as well.
Methinks you're misusing the word "socialized" here: it's not just a synonym for "very-expensive-for-the-government". I don't see how you can call a system where only a minority of the population has government coverage "socialist".
Your statistics are interesting, however: another way of viewing them is that US healthcare is *so* overpriced that the US government alone ends up spending more per capita on covering a minority of the population than almost every single socialist governments spends per capita on covering their entire population!
That isn't just inefficient, that's fucking criminal.
Belgian as well, and although there are problems, my impression is they're not as widespread as you imply. They're also predominantly among recent immigrants, which is why I said my first post "give it time".
Also, Vlaams Blok hasn't had 30% support in years, and their resurgence in 2012, at least in Antwerpen, had more to do with people being sick of SP.A. Are you maybe thinking of NVA? That has more to do with Vlaams/Waals than Belgian/Moroccan.
Immigrant muslims in Europe have been around for at least 1 if not 2 generations (first gulf war and before that) and have by and far not integrated at all in European culture
False. Belgium brought over many people from Morocco in the 50s to work in the mines and industry, and those people have by and large integrated. There's a new, more recent wave of immigrants that haven't yet, but give it time.
GP would likely be in perfect agreement with you that the unions have been fighting against charter schools and the like, and have been spending a lot of money doing so. However, GP was making the point that in schools where poverty is clearly the issue, the administrators ignore the actual problem and instead bring in charters, as if that will fix the problem of students being too hungry to think straight.
GPs post is not a comment against charters but rather one advocating for looking at what the actual problem is in an area. If the teachers and administrators are bad then yes, bring in charters, but if they're good and the problem lies with student poverty, then bring in a social safety net instead. There's no one solution that'll work everywhere.
Slashdot Mirror
Ditto to this. I stopped updating Windows 7 a few years ago when some critical update was incompatible with dual-boot, and haven't had a problem since. Works fine for an occasional-use gaming machine.
would have spent is another matter, for another discussion.
better spent is what I took issue with in GP's post. There are definitely things that individuals and the free market are better at judging, but I would not count infrastructure, basic education, and disaster/first response among those, to list a few off the top of my head. Considering that Greece was verging on broke a year ago, it wouldn't have been able to pay for any of its programs whatsoever, including both the waste-of-money ones as well as the essential ones. If the level of tax dodging in Greece really is at the levels that was reported in the media last year, I doubt cutting the waste would have been sufficient to put them in the black.
You can blame debt for the crisis, but debt was merely the acute symptom: the underlying disease was insufficient tax revenue to balance expenses. Whether that would better be fixed by increasing tax or decreasing expenditure is hard to say, but I'd expect it's a bit of both. Cutting waste AND fixing tax enforcement would have done a lot to put them in a better position, more than taking either of those actions alone.
More generally, I don't think the state should do everything. However, there are a minimum number of services it should offer, it being in the best position to do so, and when tax revenue is so low you can't even offer those, then I'd say that increasing taxes will produce a net benefit, in contrast with GP's implication that raising taxes never improves things.
Sure - if Greece had actually collected the taxes due, rather than just saying "meh" and relying on debt, they'd be in a better situation than they are now.
False. Top 1% pay almost half the taxes in the US. They may have many ways of dodging *specific* taxes, but per capita they contribute far more than anyone else.
o_O
True - there are definitely some perverse incentives in the system we have today. The safety net has to be remade into a sliding scale, such that starting to support yourself doesn't leave you worse off than you were.
The war on poverty I remember from the 90s was global, and on a global level we definitely have improved. Not sure what the US-only statistics are, although I think we're better off than the media and politicians seem to want us to believe.
Rofl.
Tell me another, buddy.
So? Just because you find it absurd, doesn't mean it didn't happen. I find your anti-GMO stance absurd but it's depressingly prevalent, for example.
Get over your obsession with "natural" food.
It's not wrong - most food has been modified in some way, and I mean more than just selective breeding. A hundred years ago they were using chemicals and radioactivity to mutate the plant, as opposed to CRISPR. Your default never existed, and your conspiracy theories about the industry buying the government are laughable.
Probably because they have no idea if they're GMO or not. If they knew they would put it on there because they could charge more without it costing them anything - free profit. If they don't know already, it'll cost them more to find out, if even possible.
Theory works fine - as I said, if not labeled otherwise then assume it contains GMO, and buy the stuff that says "Non-GMO" which is guaranteed to not be GMO. You get your non-GMOs and the rest of us don't have to pay for spurious process control and labeling.
Food is already labeled - just by the stuff that says "non-GMO". Assume anything without that label *is* GMO, as companies who aren't using GMOs are incentivized by the price premium non-GMO food gets to make sure their products are labeled as such.
No need to label GMO food as GMO when all the non-GMO food is already labeled as non-GMO, that would be redundant at the very least.
802.11a might be unsuitable for large homes but it works great in small apartments, especially considering the 2.4 GHz band is way overloaded by neighbors, half of whom don't understand the concept of "non-overlapping channels". You exaggerate how short it's range is: 802.11a goes fine through a couple of sheetrock walls. It's also supported by macbooks, chromebooks, and to some degree by either camp's phones, so I definitely wouldn't say "hardly any".
I thought the movies were a travesty where they removed most of the good qualities of the books and instead tried to make it a dramatic, exciting action-adventure. Just re-read the books for the Nth time, however, and I think they're great.
De gustibus non est disputatum - you and I are clearly looking for different qualities in our entertainment. Thankfully there's more than enough to go around.
And back on topic: I tried listening to a podcast on fast-forward for a grand total of about a minute, and had to turn it off. Felt way too much like work, and I like to savor things slowly. Some recent movies are paced a little fast for my taste as well, as they feel jarring and abrupt, and without any foundation.
I'll believe that. Maybe it's just that in my area landlords can afford to be lazy, since demand is high, and so they either staple stuff to the outside or just say no.
Of course, I don't expect to see municipal fiber here either, much as I'd like to...
Except that, at least in the case of the morgage interest rate deduction, isn't "encouraging desired behavior" exactly the justification the government gives for that deduction? The US govt wants to encourage and enable home ownership, so they grant a credit on the taxes the government is due to anyone trying to own a home.
In general it's not "either, or", as although some deductions are credits, not all are - business expense deductions springs to mind. Drug testing people for deducting business expenses would therefore be unconscionable, but testing people for getting a credit for mortgage interest paid *might* be acceptable.
Unfortunately, as GP implies, there's a good number of MDUs with no conduits whatsoever (caveat: anecdotal experience). I live in one, for instance, and you can see the TV coax cable stapled to the side of the building going to the different rooms of each apartment. No idea how the phone is routed - I assume they just strung it inside the wall like an electrical cable when the building was built in the 50s.
In that situation, bashing holes in the walls is about the only choice.
Right, because English is so consistent in its link between spelling and pronounciation.
Night, knight, fox, faux, through, thorough, "the dove dove into the bushes"... I could go on for a while. English is *dominated* by words pronounced without regard to the spelling.
You give one argument against eliminating the corporate tax and counter it in detail, but another argument given frequently is the following: if corporations are not taxed, then anyone with a good accountant will incorporate themselves, pipe everything to this company instead of to themselves personally, and thereby live tax free.
I believe this already happens in Belgium, where individuals set up companies to buy the house they want so as to avoid tax at the time of purchase. Companies pay capital gains at sale instead, but since many Belgians are sedentary, that'll likely only be an issue for the estate after they're dead.
To make eliminating corporate tax workable you'd at the very least have to introduce a broad VAT-type system where inter-business transactions are also taxed. That, or set up a very elaborate benefits-in-kind detection scheme.
Maybe that's true in the US, but I'd expect that Italy's more like Belgium, where Architecture is an engineering discipline. In Belgium the architects were in the same chem, physics, thermo, calc, and other engineering classes as the rest of us, so they've got the same base as any EE, ME, etc.
I recall a "keyboard" from 5 or 10 years ago that projected the keys on a flat surface and tracked your fingers to register key presses. Wasn't one of the conclusions that typing on a hard, unyielding surface is a good way to end up with sore and strained fingers?
Does this patent address that issue in any way?
Probably yes, if you're speaking directly to an individual and you refer to them using "boy", as in, "Boy, go get me a drink!". However, I believe GP was thinking more of something along the lines of "Are you going out with the boys tonight?", which I don't think would bother most people.
Of course, can't say I've met anyone who would object if I used "girls" in that same sentence, so I'm not sure what all the fuss is about.
Can anyone with access to the papers share what's new about "advanced pulse compression noise" radar versus classic noise radar?
Noise radar itself, i.e. transmitting white noise and then correlating returns with the original noise signal to find the targets, is not a new technology. I don't doubt there's something new here, but the articles are too light on details to be able to tell what.
Also, bit of a stretch to call it "encryption"... Methinks that was the managers or the journalists.
Maybe no "trickery" in the case of your router, but definitely in GP's, who said he had to set it to Japan.
But yes, it is your fault if you set it to channel 14 and cause interference, especially seeing as you know you shouldn't be able to. Broadcom does not indemnify you for any interference you cause. This is on top of the ethical point that you're willfully causing interference and don't seem to care.
I have a commercial access point that comes with no restrictions whatsoever as to which channels you can set it to, which is why it also comes with a warning label saying it must be set up by a professional. If I put it on channel 14 of the 2.4 GHz band, or on any but the lowest 4 of the 5 GHz channels, then I'm responsible for the interference and it'll be me who the FCC fines.
Methinks you misunderstand GP, be that accidentally or purposely. Either way, the reason channel 14 is so clear in the US is because it's illegal to use it. That channel overlaps with licensed spectrum users, and by using 14 in the US you'll be interfering with them. Depending on the level of interference you may one day get a visit from the FCC, along with a heavy fine.
There's a reason you have to trick your router to get it to allow you to use 14.
Methinks you're misusing the word "socialized" here: it's not just a synonym for "very-expensive-for-the-government". I don't see how you can call a system where only a minority of the population has government coverage "socialist".
Your statistics are interesting, however: another way of viewing them is that US healthcare is *so* overpriced that the US government alone ends up spending more per capita on covering a minority of the population than almost every single socialist governments spends per capita on covering their entire population!
That isn't just inefficient, that's fucking criminal.
Belgian as well, and although there are problems, my impression is they're not as widespread as you imply. They're also predominantly among recent immigrants, which is why I said my first post "give it time".
Also, Vlaams Blok hasn't had 30% support in years, and their resurgence in 2012, at least in Antwerpen, had more to do with people being sick of SP.A. Are you maybe thinking of NVA? That has more to do with Vlaams/Waals than Belgian/Moroccan.
False. Belgium brought over many people from Morocco in the 50s to work in the mines and industry, and those people have by and large integrated. There's a new, more recent wave of immigrants that haven't yet, but give it time.
No, definitely your mistake.
GP would likely be in perfect agreement with you that the unions have been fighting against charter schools and the like, and have been spending a lot of money doing so. However, GP was making the point that in schools where poverty is clearly the issue, the administrators ignore the actual problem and instead bring in charters, as if that will fix the problem of students being too hungry to think straight.
GPs post is not a comment against charters but rather one advocating for looking at what the actual problem is in an area. If the teachers and administrators are bad then yes, bring in charters, but if they're good and the problem lies with student poverty, then bring in a social safety net instead. There's no one solution that'll work everywhere.