Anyway, the introduction to my comment is that I don't like or dislike Hillary, but she is clearly well qualified to be president and the Donald is clearly fundamentally not qualified. The HuffPo piece is just one more angle on why not.
Therefore I believe that a Trump victory would be quite similar to a decapitation strike. Insofar as America has real enemies including Putin and Daesh, they would obviously be motivated to do anything they can to help Trump win. Hacking the DNC is one angle, but I'm more concerned about a major terrorist strike timed just before the election. America's enemies may be crazy, but they aren't stupid.
Cue the crazy trolls. Actually, I'm not convinced all of Trump's trolls are crazy. Even the ones that seem to be sincere might be faking it, like Trump himself. Actually makes more sense to me that some of them are paid to fake it (perhaps by Putin and his fiends). (Apologies to Rocky and Bullwinkle, eh?)
Right before posting, I always <ctrl>-A/<ctrl>-C to grab a copy of the text. That way if the system hiccups, I can open a local text file and save the text while I straighten things out. Has saved my bacon bunch of times.
On your point about Hillary being qualified, and not trying to provoke an emotional response, I took the trouble to research Hillary's decisions and accomplishments over the last 16 years.
And came up empty.
There's not a single moment that I could find, no decision or action or award, that Hillary can point to with pride and say "I did this!". The best I can come up with is that she was elected as senator.
Since you think she's qualified, can you help me out by justifying that a bit? I mean... is there *anything* you can point to that forms the basis of your opinion?
I don't mean "she's not Trump", either. I could just as well vote for the Green or Libertarian candidate, and they're also not Trump.
What has she actually *done* that merits your support?
(Note that I'm trying not to be trollish, and I haven't thrown any insults. Please keep that in mind when responding.)
I think where I have true fear and respect for "sales" is when they convince someone to buy something they didn't even want and they're happy about doing it (I'm specifically excluding outright fraud here, sham products or tricks).
Go listen to Brian Tracy's explanation of the "four walls" sales technique. It's so effective that it was banned in several states.
It's the method historically used by encyclopedia salesmen to dupe people into buying encyclopedias that they didn't really want.
The explanation is disconcerting to the point of frightening, because the technique works so well. And it *was* used in many, many instances of encyclopedia sales.
Your Political Facebook Posts Aren't Changing How Your Friends Think
This study is just a rip-off of earlier research into human psychology--specifically, of all previous research into human psychology--which has proven pretty conclusively that nothing anyone says has ever changed anyone's mind about anything ever.
That's certainly true in the studies, and of course the scientists couldn't think of any other avenue to research so it must be true.
OTOH, listening to Brian Tracy's "The Psychology of Selling" gave me the chills because, listening to him explain the methods, I got the distinct feeling that these methods would work on me *and* I can recall many times when they were used on me.
The audio is downright scary at times, but I highly recommend it simply because it'll help you put your guard up against some of the techniques.
He points out, quite correctly, that you can't get someone to change their mind without first pulling them out of heuristic mode and into systemic mode. The easiest way to do this is to ask a question, but there are other methods.
Then you need to phrase the concept in a way that's important to the listener. You don't come in to an office and say "our copiers make xxx copies per minute, and are very reliable", you say "our copiers can save you $2000 per month in expenses, would you like to know how?". The $2000 is something the listener is interested in, and the question pops them into systemic mode. It's how you start a successful sales call.
Most political screeds don't do this - they just state the position, and mostly it's not very convincing to begin with. Donald Trump has been called every bad name in the book, but I don't see how any of that would be persuasive or even make him a bad president. Donald Trump is behind in the polls *if the election were held today*, that's not persuasive *and* I don't even see the point of posting something like that.
So if I wanted to convince people to vote for Trump, I might point out that amnesty for 14 million illegals will bring unemployment to 20% and decrease job security, then ask if there's any other issue that's more important to them than their own job security.
(Is there? I'd be interested to know.)
So if I wanted people to vote for Hillary, I might suggest that Trumps policies will cause economic decline in the US, and companies will flee to other countries or go out of business, then ask if there's any other issue that's more important to them than the economy.
(Is there? I'd be interested to know.)
And then there's people like Scott Adams, who has put a completely original spin on everything about the election, and predicted everything that actually happened from the viewpoint of hypnosis. (Even Nate Silver mis-interpreted Trump's popularity, which is what you get when you look solely at the numbers and not at the situation.)
So no, I don't think it's quite correct to say "nobody has ever changed anyone's mind about anything ever". It happens all the time... in sales.
(Here's Scott Adams talking about trying to purchase a vehicle. It's quite an interesting story, and shows a first-person view of one of the techniques of sales.)
And the politicoes are all stumped as to why people are angry at them and screaming for real change, to the point where people will actually vote for an asshat like Trump...
Given Clinton's recent hiring practices and campaign staff, maybe we should just be happy that she hired Americans and leave it at that.
Did you visit the link I provided? The guy fits the bill and he was indeed a project manager. Of course I agree with what you wrote. I manage stuff that I know about. My head isn't inflated enough to pretend I can manage everything.
Actually, I didn't. I honestly thought it was part of your sig, and didn't think it was relevant to your text. Sorry about that.
Maybe weave the link as part of text as a reference to a position, or refer to it in the text?
An acquaintance who is a manager once told me that he can manage anything because, well, managing is managing. Another one suggested to me when I was a teen to go study management because, well, managers will always be needed...
Isn't that a little pretentious and old school like where the boss is the boss, doesn't matter if he is right or wrong or if he knows what he is talking about.
Seems to me hard to understand how a manager can manage something he doesn't know anything about unless he has skilled technical assistants. But how will he evaluate the skills of his assistants? I suppose if the assistants tell him what he wants to hear, it might help.
This is one of the fallacies of modern MBA-style management: management is a specific skill that's the same across all industries.
In it's worst form, it's what gets us CEOs who slash costs and show growth for the first year, then leave with a golden parachute while the company flounders.
If you study management even a little, you realize that the best managers are expert in their respective fields. This is not to say that software managers must be expert coders, but they need to have in mind the capabilities and limitations of the company products, the tools that the coders use, the current marketing trends, and some ad-hoc guesswork as to where the market is going. And also, they should at least know how to code, if not be an expert at it.
Consider: Do you think a generic manager could step in and manager a newspaper without intimate knowledge of the newspaper business? How well do you think that company would do if it actually happened?
Looking at some of Warren Buffet's writings, I note that he has people he trusts that can quickly learn the business and make informed choices that ultimately turn a company around. For example, a troubled company that supplies hardware, his people identified parts that had little profit and were available from other suppliers, as opposed to other parts that had more profit and were unique to the business. That's how he buys distressed companies and turns them around.
This is not what generic MBA-style managers do: learn the business, go into detail, and make strong decisions that benefit the company.
Looking at how GE gets vice-presidents, they always hire from within. They take a director and move him over to another department for a couple of years, and see how well he does. Then they move him again, and in a couple of years move him again. Over time, the directors become very well informed about how the business actually works, and anyone who isn't flexible enough to learn and do well in the business gets weeded out.
GE executives are some of the best managers in the world.
I've worked with a lot of "plug-in" managers who never seem to know where to go or what to do. They take the opinions of their staff as gospel without adding their own expertise, and serve as a simple buffer between the workers and upper management.
Well the thing with that is if police can just do whatever they want to obtain evidence to throw you in jail, then they can practically throw anybody they want in jail[...].
Just to bolster the poster's thought, consider that police are now generally allowed to shoot unarmed blacks for no cause so long as they say that they "I thought he had a gun".
When this was allowed, the number of police shooting unarmed black people has skyrocketed.
And in other news, the police that were involved in Freddie Gray's death while in custody were all acquitted.
Simply put, Slashdot is the Donald Trump Forum, and if you're not advocating for him to be president and demanding imprisonment for Clinton, you're going to pay. I'm going to be honest, after being here since 2003, I'm just about ready to leave simply because mod points are being handed out to some of the most regressive people around, the very same kind of people that endlessly whine about how they're being censored for their views.
I actually keep track of the sentiment on Slashdot, both from the responses to my posts and general mood for certain topics. One topic I keep track of is the Clinton/Trump thing.
Firstly, don't feel like you need to leave because of the Trump/Clinton thing. In prior presidential election years, Slashdot goes to hell starting about 6 weeks before the election, and becomes unbearably dumb about 2 weeks before. Partisan sock puppets from both camps do nothing but carp and snipe and insult anyone who tries to post a political view.
It's happened before, and it's happening right now as well.
It's worse this year, probably a combination of a) this particular election is especially contentious, b) a lot of people are hurting and want to see change(*), and c) internet attendance is higher now than it was 4 or 8 years ago (and will probably be even higher 4 years from now).
Whiplash asked for suggestions when he took over, and I mentioned this specific point in a response.
Secondly, I monitor my own style and set goals for my posts. I'm currently working controversial posts, and this fits in well with my support of Trump.
What I've found is that all of the posts on either side are simple blind insults. Clinton is dirty and corrupt, Trump is a racist and bigot, there's not much else to see here. I've even called out the readership, asking for any *rational* reason to vote for Clinton over Trump (my particular choice - it would work as well the other way). No one has ever put forth a reasonable and rational reason for one candidate over the other(**).
Thirdly, it's easy to get around the mod point system simply by posting actual content. Make an insightful post--a way of looking at things that make sense and that someone else may have missed--and back it up with some links.
I've found that there are enough people here who still appreciate an interesting point, than there are partisans who will automatically down-vote something they don't like. I know this because my own posts get voted up *and* down (yes, I monitor my posts over time), and the up votes always win out eventually. It sometimes takes a couple of hours, but it almost always happens.
I believe that there are more intelligent and mature people reading this forum than there are partisan hacks, but these same people aren't interested in getting involved(***), or are too busy with life, or don't like getting insulted.
Lastly, note that Trump has the support of a fair slice of American voters right now. You can claim that he doesn't have enough support to win, but that's not the point: if 30% of the electorate is pro Trump, you'll see a lot of support here. Just like there was for Sanders, just like there was for Romney.
Take the trouble to think through your opinion (it helps if you come to your own opinion, rather than use someone else's (****)), post links to support your position, and don't insult and snipe people.
When you do this, the mature and honest readers will support you.
(*) In prior elections, both D and R were still "more of the same". (**) One anonymous exception, I tried to encourage them to get an account and continue, and haven't heard from them since. (***) I want to improve my public writing skills, and I use Slashdot as my practice range. (****) Years ago I saw a clip of Christopher Hitchens, who comes to his own views on things, and it really stuck with me.
Thanks for the info. I figured as much. In 20 years we can replace the turbines at $10 million apiece and get another 20 years of service for much less.
It seems lots of people on this site are four-square against any type of renewable energy, and try to rationalize their claims to the audience by making reasonable-sounding economic arguments.
The arguments just don't pass the sniff test, and completely ignore evidence from other countries and seem rather short-sighted, given that natural gas is a fixed resource.
I've often wondered if the Koch brothers or other moneyed interests actually pay people to troll Slashdot with political bias. Tesla bashing is another one.
That would be an awesome hacker leak or insider interview, don't you think? An insider view of a sock-puppet factory, how people get paid to post political opinions on high-traffic newsfeeds.
However, the FEC did say that Bill Maher made an excessive and impermissible donation to the Bernie Sanders campaign. They're definitely on the ball and looking after our interests!
Remember how Hillary said she deleted *only* personal E-mails that would be of no interest to the investigation? Yup - several work-related E-mails in the new batch, which were not given over to the FBI. (Also, these were released under by the State Department under court order, which means that the State Department had them and didn't make them available to the FBI either.)
And of course, it's not about the lies and corruption that these leaks uncover... it's those evil Russians meddling in our internal political affairs. What right do they have to meddle in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation?
I've gotten 'kinda jaded about whether it's "appropriate" or "inappropriate" to remove personal details from a leak and such. Go ahead and dox the lawmakers, maybe it'll get them to make better laws to protect their privacy, and by accident, protect ours as well.
Maybe I should start a petition on Change.org to get some of these problems addressed. That always works.
At the average price for electricity(14.4 cents per kW/h) in RI at the average household electricity usage per month(602 kW/h) it will take 16.96 years to pay that $300 million back. That assumes no operating costs or maintenence costs. Which is obviously bullshit. Turbines have, at max, a 20 year lifespan. But of course, green energy is viable, blah blah blah. Oh, and all this assumes constant delivery, which is never the case for wind as well.
You seem to be knowledgeable in the field, so can you give us some more detail about Turbans(*)?
1) Will the cost be $300 million per 5 turbines for any number of turbines, or will there be an economy of scale when building bigger installations?
2) Will the cost be $300 million per 5 turbines forever, or will they get increasingly cheaper (or more expensive) in the future?
3) Will the average price for electricity go up, down, or generally stay the same over the next 20 years?
4) Will the costs of generating electricity using current technology (95% el-gen is natural gas in RI) go up as natural gas reserves are depleted?
5) Will the average 20 year lifetime of turbines get better for future turbines?
6) You mention assumptions ("assumes constant delivery") in your post. Are there any other assumptions that I should be asking about?
Trump doesn't want his friend Putin and his friends to get tied to this too much.
Did you do know that Clinton (as SoS) sold 20% of American Uranium reserves to Russia, and coincidentally the Clinton foundation received massive donations from Russia?
Did you know that Clinton (as SoS) sold advanced technology to Russia and coincidentally received "tens of millions" of dollars in donations to the Clinton foundation? (Dual-use technology, things that can be used for both industry and military.)
Did you know that Clinton (as SoS) organized and helped build the "Russian Silicon Valley", which opened many US companies to industrial espionage? (17 of 28 companies, both Russian and American, made financial commitments to the Clinton Foundation or sponsored speeches by Bill Clinton.)
Out of curiosity, when you say Trump and Putin are friends, what's your evidence?
I see several comments where people ask something like "What's Assange's game plan?" His game plan should be obvious to anyone. His plan is to say anything it takes to get his name in the news so he can somehow dream that he is still relevant and play the martyr.
1. Julian Assange will out a source if it will get him press attention, or 2. The dead guy was not the actual source and the DNC would have no motive to take retribution, so Julian Assange will lie about a source if it will get him press attention.
3. If you murder a Wikileaks source, Julian Assange will go after you with everything he's got, releasing the information at the worst possible moment, in the most damaging possible way, and offer rewards for the capture of the murderer.
In other words, it's a message to those who would murder wikileaks informants.
The republicans must be up in arms over this ruling, not to mention these anti-free enterprise laws passed by democratic state legislatures. Right?
And those Democrats! Why - we've even got a Democratic president, for gosh's sake. What does he say?
I'll bet if the Democrats and Republicans wanted to, they could pass a law that would have bipartisan support, and then the Democratic president could sign it into office.
Oh god, not chemicals! Tell me there's not dihydrogen monoxide in my drinking water! The government is spraying chemtrails over my house and sometimes when I water my tomato plants I see rainbows in the water, you can't explain that!
You do know there's more than one type of chemical, right?
The reason for hiring them, at least in Silicon Valley, is not to pay a bargain basement wage, but to enable US companies to hire the best and brightest in the world. It's got nothing to do with a shortage of US workers. [...] Now, if US employers were forced to hire based on immigration status - citizens first, then green card holders, then it would be a distinct advantage to be a citizen. It'd also probably result in US employers not having the smartest people in the world working for them.
So let me see if I get your point.
The important issue in your mind is that US employers get the smartest people in the world.
And this is a more important issue than US citizens having a job.
Additionally, why shouldn't there be an advantage to being a citizen?
(I'm all for helping people in other nations, and note that we've brought a lot of people out of poverty... but do we have to bring our own population into poverty to promote that goal?)
For background, answer these two questions with yes or no:
Q1: Can you think of an example of a poisonous snake?
Q2: Can you think of an example of a venomous snake?
Reading these two lines, many people have sudden insight that the words have different meanings. They 'kinda knew, but hadn't realized it yet. They may have read "poisonous" and "venomous" many times and not made the connection, simply because the words are so close in meaning. We almost never bother to look up the definitions, preferring to get the meanings from context.
In the same way, "invent" and "build" have closely related meanings, and it's entirely reasonable for a 14 year-old kid to say he "invented" something when he just takes some parts and puts them together. It's not an "original" invention, but the kid came up with an idea and built it.
It's perfectly reasonable for him to say he "invented" it.
It's also perfectly reasonable for the teacher to tell him to put it away, and perfectly reasonable for him to disobey at age 14, in class because as we all know school classes are BORING.
I'm really not getting all the hatred aimed at the kid here. People are measuring him with the ruler of adulthood, requiring his idea to be original and useful to be termed "invented", to be conversant with what's right and reasonable as an adult, and when he doesn't measure up he's completely villified.
Yes, he took apart an alarm clock, made it look like a Hollywood bomb, and claimed he "invented" it. He is a liar, a swindler, and a piece of shit human. He tried to play the media with his pity party. Then he left the country. Good riddance! But someone left the door open and the vermin got back in again.
Slashdot Mirror
Weird that my draft committed suicide as I attempted to reply... Reminds me of http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... in some ways...
Anyway, the introduction to my comment is that I don't like or dislike Hillary, but she is clearly well qualified to be president and the Donald is clearly fundamentally not qualified. The HuffPo piece is just one more angle on why not.
Therefore I believe that a Trump victory would be quite similar to a decapitation strike. Insofar as America has real enemies including Putin and Daesh, they would obviously be motivated to do anything they can to help Trump win. Hacking the DNC is one angle, but I'm more concerned about a major terrorist strike timed just before the election. America's enemies may be crazy, but they aren't stupid.
Cue the crazy trolls. Actually, I'm not convinced all of Trump's trolls are crazy. Even the ones that seem to be sincere might be faking it, like Trump himself. Actually makes more sense to me that some of them are paid to fake it (perhaps by Putin and his fiends). (Apologies to Rocky and Bullwinkle, eh?)
Right before posting, I always <ctrl>-A/<ctrl>-C to grab a copy of the text. That way if the system hiccups, I can open a local text file and save the text while I straighten things out. Has saved my bacon bunch of times.
On your point about Hillary being qualified, and not trying to provoke an emotional response, I took the trouble to research Hillary's decisions and accomplishments over the last 16 years.
And came up empty.
There's not a single moment that I could find, no decision or action or award, that Hillary can point to with pride and say "I did this!". The best I can come up with is that she was elected as senator.
Since you think she's qualified, can you help me out by justifying that a bit? I mean... is there *anything* you can point to that forms the basis of your opinion?
I don't mean "she's not Trump", either. I could just as well vote for the Green or Libertarian candidate, and they're also not Trump.
What has she actually *done* that merits your support?
(Note that I'm trying not to be trollish, and I haven't thrown any insults. Please keep that in mind when responding.)
I think where I have true fear and respect for "sales" is when they convince someone to buy something they didn't even want and they're happy about doing it (I'm specifically excluding outright fraud here, sham products or tricks).
Go listen to Brian Tracy's explanation of the "four walls" sales technique. It's so effective that it was banned in several states.
It's the method historically used by encyclopedia salesmen to dupe people into buying encyclopedias that they didn't really want.
The explanation is disconcerting to the point of frightening, because the technique works so well. And it *was* used in many, many instances of encyclopedia sales.
Your Political Facebook Posts Aren't Changing How Your Friends Think
This study is just a rip-off of earlier research into human psychology--specifically, of all previous research into human psychology--which has proven pretty conclusively that nothing anyone says has ever changed anyone's mind about anything ever.
That's certainly true in the studies, and of course the scientists couldn't think of any other avenue to research so it must be true.
OTOH, listening to Brian Tracy's "The Psychology of Selling" gave me the chills because, listening to him explain the methods, I got the distinct feeling that these methods would work on me *and* I can recall many times when they were used on me.
The audio is downright scary at times, but I highly recommend it simply because it'll help you put your guard up against some of the techniques.
He points out, quite correctly, that you can't get someone to change their mind without first pulling them out of heuristic mode and into systemic mode. The easiest way to do this is to ask a question, but there are other methods.
Then you need to phrase the concept in a way that's important to the listener. You don't come in to an office and say "our copiers make xxx copies per minute, and are very reliable", you say "our copiers can save you $2000 per month in expenses, would you like to know how?". The $2000 is something the listener is interested in, and the question pops them into systemic mode. It's how you start a successful sales call.
Most political screeds don't do this - they just state the position, and mostly it's not very convincing to begin with. Donald Trump has been called every bad name in the book, but I don't see how any of that would be persuasive or even make him a bad president. Donald Trump is behind in the polls *if the election were held today*, that's not persuasive *and* I don't even see the point of posting something like that.
So if I wanted to convince people to vote for Trump, I might point out that amnesty for 14 million illegals will bring unemployment to 20% and decrease job security, then ask if there's any other issue that's more important to them than their own job security.
(Is there? I'd be interested to know.)
So if I wanted people to vote for Hillary, I might suggest that Trumps policies will cause economic decline in the US, and companies will flee to other countries or go out of business, then ask if there's any other issue that's more important to them than the economy.
(Is there? I'd be interested to know.)
And then there's people like Scott Adams, who has put a completely original spin on everything about the election, and predicted everything that actually happened from the viewpoint of hypnosis. (Even Nate Silver mis-interpreted Trump's popularity, which is what you get when you look solely at the numbers and not at the situation.)
So no, I don't think it's quite correct to say "nobody has ever changed anyone's mind about anything ever". It happens all the time... in sales.
(Here's Scott Adams talking about trying to purchase a vehicle. It's quite an interesting story, and shows a first-person view of one of the techniques of sales.)
And the politicoes are all stumped as to why people are angry at them and screaming for real change, to the point where people will actually vote for an asshat like Trump...
Given Clinton's recent hiring practices and campaign staff, maybe we should just be happy that she hired Americans and leave it at that.
Did you visit the link I provided? The guy fits the bill and he was indeed a project manager. Of course I agree with what you wrote. I manage stuff that I know about. My head isn't inflated enough to pretend I can manage everything.
Actually, I didn't. I honestly thought it was part of your sig, and didn't think it was relevant to your text. Sorry about that.
Maybe weave the link as part of text as a reference to a position, or refer to it in the text?
An acquaintance who is a manager once told me that he can manage anything because, well, managing is managing. Another one suggested to me when I was a teen to go study management because, well, managers will always be needed...
Isn't that a little pretentious and old school like where the boss is the boss, doesn't matter if he is right or wrong or if he knows what he is talking about.
Seems to me hard to understand how a manager can manage something he doesn't know anything about unless he has skilled technical assistants. But how will he evaluate the skills of his assistants? I suppose if the assistants tell him what he wants to hear, it might help.
This is one of the fallacies of modern MBA-style management: management is a specific skill that's the same across all industries.
In it's worst form, it's what gets us CEOs who slash costs and show growth for the first year, then leave with a golden parachute while the company flounders.
If you study management even a little, you realize that the best managers are expert in their respective fields. This is not to say that software managers must be expert coders, but they need to have in mind the capabilities and limitations of the company products, the tools that the coders use, the current marketing trends, and some ad-hoc guesswork as to where the market is going. And also, they should at least know how to code, if not be an expert at it.
Consider: Do you think a generic manager could step in and manager a newspaper without intimate knowledge of the newspaper business? How well do you think that company would do if it actually happened?
Looking at some of Warren Buffet's writings, I note that he has people he trusts that can quickly learn the business and make informed choices that ultimately turn a company around. For example, a troubled company that supplies hardware, his people identified parts that had little profit and were available from other suppliers, as opposed to other parts that had more profit and were unique to the business. That's how he buys distressed companies and turns them around.
This is not what generic MBA-style managers do: learn the business, go into detail, and make strong decisions that benefit the company.
Looking at how GE gets vice-presidents, they always hire from within. They take a director and move him over to another department for a couple of years, and see how well he does. Then they move him again, and in a couple of years move him again. Over time, the directors become very well informed about how the business actually works, and anyone who isn't flexible enough to learn and do well in the business gets weeded out.
GE executives are some of the best managers in the world.
I've worked with a lot of "plug-in" managers who never seem to know where to go or what to do. They take the opinions of their staff as gospel without adding their own expertise, and serve as a simple buffer between the workers and upper management.
Really, I pointed out how you contradicted yourself, if you aren't going to own up to your own hyperbole, why should you get to look down at others?
Face it, you burned yourself.
Nobody cares what you think, and you're not very good at it.
There is plenty of sound and valid content to see. Either you are willfully blind, outright incompetent at reading, or prone to hyperbole.
I personally doubt you can look at your own conduct rationally, let alone politicians who you will likely never meet.
Not when you continue to conduct yourself with such lack of examination of your own words.
Whoosh!
Well the thing with that is if police can just do whatever they want to obtain evidence to throw you in jail, then they can practically throw anybody they want in jail[...].
Just to bolster the poster's thought, consider that police are now generally allowed to shoot unarmed blacks for no cause so long as they say that they "I thought he had a gun".
When this was allowed, the number of police shooting unarmed black people has skyrocketed.
And in other news, the police that were involved in Freddie Gray's death while in custody were all acquitted.
Here is Trump in a nutshell.
Here is Clinton in a nutshell:
I have no accomplishments to show you, nothing I can proudly point to and say "I did that".
My lying, favouritism, disregard for rules, and ineptness aren't important - I've got the experience to be president.
Electing me will make you feel good.
The only thing I can do is throw insults, so I do it day after day after day.
Simply put, Slashdot is the Donald Trump Forum, and if you're not advocating for him to be president and demanding imprisonment for Clinton, you're going to pay. I'm going to be honest, after being here since 2003, I'm just about ready to leave simply because mod points are being handed out to some of the most regressive people around, the very same kind of people that endlessly whine about how they're being censored for their views.
I actually keep track of the sentiment on Slashdot, both from the responses to my posts and general mood for certain topics. One topic I keep track of is the Clinton/Trump thing.
Firstly, don't feel like you need to leave because of the Trump/Clinton thing. In prior presidential election years, Slashdot goes to hell starting about 6 weeks before the election, and becomes unbearably dumb about 2 weeks before. Partisan sock puppets from both camps do nothing but carp and snipe and insult anyone who tries to post a political view.
It's happened before, and it's happening right now as well.
It's worse this year, probably a combination of a) this particular election is especially contentious, b) a lot of people are hurting and want to see change(*), and c) internet attendance is higher now than it was 4 or 8 years ago (and will probably be even higher 4 years from now).
Whiplash asked for suggestions when he took over, and I mentioned this specific point in a response.
Secondly, I monitor my own style and set goals for my posts. I'm currently working controversial posts, and this fits in well with my support of Trump.
What I've found is that all of the posts on either side are simple blind insults. Clinton is dirty and corrupt, Trump is a racist and bigot, there's not much else to see here. I've even called out the readership, asking for any *rational* reason to vote for Clinton over Trump (my particular choice - it would work as well the other way). No one has ever put forth a reasonable and rational reason for one candidate over the other(**).
Thirdly, it's easy to get around the mod point system simply by posting actual content. Make an insightful post--a way of looking at things that make sense and that someone else may have missed--and back it up with some links.
I've found that there are enough people here who still appreciate an interesting point, than there are partisans who will automatically down-vote something they don't like. I know this because my own posts get voted up *and* down (yes, I monitor my posts over time), and the up votes always win out eventually. It sometimes takes a couple of hours, but it almost always happens.
I believe that there are more intelligent and mature people reading this forum than there are partisan hacks, but these same people aren't interested in getting involved(***), or are too busy with life, or don't like getting insulted.
Lastly, note that Trump has the support of a fair slice of American voters right now. You can claim that he doesn't have enough support to win, but that's not the point: if 30% of the electorate is pro Trump, you'll see a lot of support here. Just like there was for Sanders, just like there was for Romney.
Take the trouble to think through your opinion (it helps if you come to your own opinion, rather than use someone else's (****)), post links to support your position, and don't insult and snipe people.
When you do this, the mature and honest readers will support you.
(*) In prior elections, both D and R were still "more of the same".
(**) One anonymous exception, I tried to encourage them to get an account and continue, and haven't heard from them since.
(***) I want to improve my public writing skills, and I use Slashdot as my practice range.
(****) Years ago I saw a clip of Christopher Hitchens, who comes to his own views on things, and it really stuck with me.
Thanks for the info. I figured as much. In 20 years we can replace the turbines at $10 million apiece and get another 20 years of service for much less.
It seems lots of people on this site are four-square against any type of renewable energy, and try to rationalize their claims to the audience by making reasonable-sounding economic arguments.
The arguments just don't pass the sniff test, and completely ignore evidence from other countries and seem rather short-sighted, given that natural gas is a fixed resource.
I've often wondered if the Koch brothers or other moneyed interests actually pay people to troll Slashdot with political bias. Tesla bashing is another one.
That would be an awesome hacker leak or insider interview, don't you think? An insider view of a sock-puppet factory, how people get paid to post political opinions on high-traffic newsfeeds.
I don't like hearing things that don't conform to my political biases. Everyone but me is an idiot who is not fit to live.
Yeah?
Then tell me where I'm wrong.
Throwing insults is 'kinda cheap and meaningless, ya know?
I really have a hard time taking sides in this one.
Rule of thumb: ignore the character of the person, reserve judgement for the law.
It sometimes helps to remove the person from the equation and substitute someone blameless.
For example, imagine yourself in that situation: as you imagine this happening to you, do you think it is just?
The FEC is not investigating the DNC for moving $61 million from local elections into the Hillary Clinton campaign, even though that would appear to directly violate FEC regulations, and possibly money laundering laws as well. (It literally rearranged the primary political landscape.)
However, the FEC did say that Bill Maher made an excessive and impermissible donation to the Bernie Sanders campaign. They're definitely on the ball and looking after our interests!
Oh, and new E-mails from the Clinton server have surfaced from a FOI request by Judicial Watch.
Remember how Hillary said she deleted *only* personal E-mails that would be of no interest to the investigation? Yup - several work-related E-mails in the new batch, which were not given over to the FBI. (Also, these were released under by the State Department under court order, which means that the State Department had them and didn't make them available to the FBI either.)
And of course, it's not about the lies and corruption that these leaks uncover... it's those evil Russians meddling in our internal political affairs. What right do they have to meddle in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation?
I've gotten 'kinda jaded about whether it's "appropriate" or "inappropriate" to remove personal details from a leak and such. Go ahead and dox the lawmakers, maybe it'll get them to make better laws to protect their privacy, and by accident, protect ours as well.
Maybe I should start a petition on Change.org to get some of these problems addressed. That always works.
At the average price for electricity(14.4 cents per kW/h) in RI at the average household electricity usage per month(602 kW/h) it will take 16.96 years to pay that $300 million back. That assumes no operating costs or maintenence costs. Which is obviously bullshit. Turbines have, at max, a 20 year lifespan. But of course, green energy is viable, blah blah blah. Oh, and all this assumes constant delivery, which is never the case for wind as well.
You seem to be knowledgeable in the field, so can you give us some more detail about Turbans(*)?
1) Will the cost be $300 million per 5 turbines for any number of turbines, or will there be an economy of scale when building bigger installations?
2) Will the cost be $300 million per 5 turbines forever, or will they get increasingly cheaper (or more expensive) in the future?
3) Will the average price for electricity go up, down, or generally stay the same over the next 20 years?
4) Will the costs of generating electricity using current technology (95% el-gen is natural gas in RI) go up as natural gas reserves are depleted?
5) Will the average 20 year lifetime of turbines get better for future turbines?
6) You mention assumptions ("assumes constant delivery") in your post. Are there any other assumptions that I should be asking about?
(*) Yes, it was on purpose. See here.
Trump doesn't want his friend Putin and his friends to get tied to this too much.
Did you do know that Clinton (as SoS) sold 20% of American Uranium reserves to Russia, and coincidentally the Clinton foundation received massive donations from Russia?
Did you know that Clinton (as SoS) sold advanced technology to Russia and coincidentally received "tens of millions" of dollars in donations to the Clinton foundation? (Dual-use technology, things that can be used for both industry and military.)
Did you know that Clinton (as SoS) organized and helped build the "Russian Silicon Valley", which opened many US companies to industrial espionage? (17 of 28 companies, both Russian and American, made financial commitments to the Clinton Foundation or sponsored speeches by Bill Clinton.)
Out of curiosity, when you say Trump and Putin are friends, what's your evidence?
I see several comments where people ask something like "What's Assange's game plan?" His game plan should be obvious to anyone. His plan is to say anything it takes to get his name in the news so he can somehow dream that he is still relevant and play the martyr.
And doing a pretty good job, it seems.
This isn't whistle blowing anymore. For one thing a whistle blower _never_ reveals a source.
Julian didn't reveal the source either, and he stated as much in the interview.
You're listening to what the *press* said Julian said. That's a completely different thing.
(viz: what the press reports that Donald Trump says, versus what he *actually* said.)
1. Julian Assange will out a source if it will get him press attention, or
2. The dead guy was not the actual source and the DNC would have no motive to take retribution, so Julian Assange will lie about a source if it will get him press attention.
3. If you murder a Wikileaks source, Julian Assange will go after you with everything he's got, releasing the information at the worst possible moment, in the most damaging possible way, and offer rewards for the capture of the murderer.
In other words, it's a message to those who would murder wikileaks informants.
And in other news, Assange has stated that there are more Hillary Clinton revelations to come. The biggest stash yet, he says.
He has stated that he has proof that Clinton had a hand in arming ISIS.
I'm running out of popcorn - need to go out and buy some more!
The republicans must be up in arms over this ruling, not to mention these anti-free enterprise laws passed by democratic state legislatures. Right?
And those Democrats! Why - we've even got a Democratic president, for gosh's sake. What does he say?
I'll bet if the Democrats and Republicans wanted to, they could pass a law that would have bipartisan support, and then the Democratic president could sign it into office.
Hah hah hah! I'm kidding.
Obama (the Democrat in charge) gave the telecoms immunity in return for campaign donations.
There's no reason to believe that he wouldn't veto the bill in return for more campaign donations... to Hillary, for instance.
Oh god, not chemicals! Tell me there's not dihydrogen monoxide in my drinking water! The government is spraying chemtrails over my house and sometimes when I water my tomato plants I see rainbows in the water, you can't explain that!
You do know there's more than one type of chemical, right?
The reason for hiring them, at least in Silicon Valley, is not to pay a bargain basement wage, but to enable US companies to hire the best and brightest in the world. It's got nothing to do with a shortage of US workers. [...] Now, if US employers were forced to hire based on immigration status - citizens first, then green card holders, then it would be a distinct advantage to be a citizen. It'd also probably result in US employers not having the smartest people in the world working for them.
So let me see if I get your point.
The important issue in your mind is that US employers get the smartest people in the world.
And this is a more important issue than US citizens having a job.
Additionally, why shouldn't there be an advantage to being a citizen?
(I'm all for helping people in other nations, and note that we've brought a lot of people out of poverty... but do we have to bring our own population into poverty to promote that goal?)
For background, answer these two questions with yes or no:
Q1: Can you think of an example of a poisonous snake?
Q2: Can you think of an example of a venomous snake?
Reading these two lines, many people have sudden insight that the words have different meanings. They 'kinda knew, but hadn't realized it yet. They may have read "poisonous" and "venomous" many times and not made the connection, simply because the words are so close in meaning. We almost never bother to look up the definitions, preferring to get the meanings from context.
In the same way, "invent" and "build" have closely related meanings, and it's entirely reasonable for a 14 year-old kid to say he "invented" something when he just takes some parts and puts them together. It's not an "original" invention, but the kid came up with an idea and built it.
It's perfectly reasonable for him to say he "invented" it.
It's also perfectly reasonable for the teacher to tell him to put it away, and perfectly reasonable for him to disobey at age 14, in class because as we all know school classes are BORING.
I'm really not getting all the hatred aimed at the kid here. People are measuring him with the ruler of adulthood, requiring his idea to be original and useful to be termed "invented", to be conversant with what's right and reasonable as an adult, and when he doesn't measure up he's completely villified.
I seriously don't get the rationale here.
But then, I'm not a liberal.
And I bet you are a moron.
You'd lose that bet.
Do you even know what a moron is?
Yes, he took apart an alarm clock, made it look like a Hollywood bomb, and claimed he "invented" it. He is a liar, a swindler, and a piece of shit human. He tried to play the media with his pity party. Then he left the country. Good riddance! But someone left the door open and the vermin got back in again.
I'll bet you're a liberal.
Am I right?