The evil group on Man from U.N.C.L.E. was T.H.R.U.S.H.(*)
Perhaps you are thinking of S.P.E.C.T.R.E.(**), the evil group in the James Bond series?
(Or was there a major character in the series I'm missing?)
(*) Technological Hierarchy for the Removal of Undesirables and the Subjugation of Humanity. (**) SPecial Executive for Counter-intelligence, Terrorism, Revenge and Extortion
According to social media, and the mainstream media as well, Trump might be the next Hitler because he does things Hitler would have done. For example:
Trump is charismatic and appeals to our prejudices.
Trump approves of violence against people he thinks deserve it.
Trump blames “others” for the nation’s problems.
Trump has an authoritarian vibe.
All that is true. But it would be equally easy to build a list of why Trump is definitely NOT like Hitler. For example:
Trump is anti-war. Hitler, not so much.
Trump asks us to favor legal citizens over non-citizens. He makes no mention of race. Hitler killed his own citizens and mostly cared about race.
Trump wants citizens to be heavily armed to protect themselves against bad people, including dictators. Hitler didn’t want to arm his potential enemies.
Trump wants greater freedom of speech that would include politically incorrect topics. Hitler wasn’t so big on free speech for others.
Trump assures us his genitalia have “no problem.” Hitler had one testicle.
I really like reading Scott Adams' blog. Unlike most analysis on the planet, he seems to address the issues in a logical, well-reasoned fashion.
According to statistician Nate Silver's site, the strongest predictor of the amount of support for Donald Trump in a given region is the number of Google searches for racist content. No other demographic indicator even comes close.
According to Nate Silver's site, congressional endorsements are a better predictor of who will win the primary elections than polling data.
Oh wait, strike that. That was last November, I still have to catch up on his current position.
I gather that you believe America will have more jobs if it just stops trading with other nations. And your state will have more jobs if you just stop trading with the rest of America. And your town will have more jobs if you just stop trading with the rest of the state. In fact, perhaps we should entirely do without commerce. That might work.
You have a valid point, and one that deserves an answer.
In past decades, free trade agreements were sold to the American public as a way to become richer. Economists admitted that wages would stagnate, but pointed out that goods and services from abroad would be much cheaper so that overall we would be richer.
Wages would stagnate, but costs would go down faster than what wages would have risen.
It's now several decades later, manufacturing has moved to Mexico and China and India, wages have indeed stagnated, and there are Chinese dollar stores everywhere.
The problem with this model is that the benefits went mostly to the rich, while the middle class was gutted. We can look at the past couple of decades with perfect hindsight and see income inequality skyrocket while employment tanked.
Keeping jobs local forces the rich to pay more to produce goods, and acts to prevent this inequality. The extra expenses go into the local economy and benefits Americans, instead of benefiting a people in other countries.
In fact, perhaps we should entirely do without commerce. That might work.
Maybe we should outsource all our jobs to other countries. That would work just as well.
This all assumes increased debt is the worst thing which could happen to the economy. It isn't, not by a long shot.
The United States has a net worth of about $124 trillion in 2014 (source). The total federal deficit is about $19 trillion and the federal deficit is $500 billion. But the total US net worth grows by far more than $500 billion per year, so it is very misleading to say the deficit is a large problem. For instance, the total net worth of US households and non-profits grew by $10 trillion in 2014 alone. If I am going $5000 in debt each year, but my total net worth is growing by $10,000 each year, I am still in a pretty good position.
The risk of damaging the economy with drastic measures is far more dangerous than going a few trillion more in debt. Current federal debt levels are really not that bad when put into perspective, although understandably it is very hard for people to put $500 billion in perspective. But to make it easier, the US is a household with a $248,000 house with $38,000 left on their mortgage, and a family budget losing about $100 per month. That is not a dire situation.
If what you're saying is true, we could eliminate the federal income tax *entirely* and simply go into debt each year for the federal budget.
That's what you're saying, yes? If the federal budget is $3.5 trillion, and we're increasing our national value by $10 trillion a year, then we're still coming out ahead, right?
This would be even better than your analogy of going into debt by $5K while increasing in value by $10K each year.
Why don't we do that then?
Howcome we don't simply eliminate income taxes(*)?
(A rhetorical question to illustrate just how ridiculous your explanation is. It doesn't hold up when taken to its logical conclusion.)
I don't know if it's fair to compare Trump and Sanders. Sanders has a pretty solid, decades old voting record that gives a pretty clear picture of where he stands.
But as I learned in school, you can’t compare something to nothing. You need to compare the risk of a Trump presidency to the alternatives. And that alternative is probably a Clinton presidency that is not too different from the current presidency.
So how risky would “more of the same” be?
Budget-wise, we are probably on the road to ruin. The more-of-the-same president is unlikely to stop the special interests and big money players from bloating the budget to the point of crushing debt.
Nor would we have any reason to expect the economy to have any extra zip under a more-of-the-same scenario. So no matter how bad you think Trump might be for the economy, the more-of-the-same alternative is probably a pathway to crushing debts and financial doom.
And once the economy dies, we all die. So as risks go, “more of the same” might be the highest risk of all. The only way we would escape economic doom under the more-of-the-same scenario is for some unpredictable future event to change our direction in a positive way. Is that likely?
Trump, on the other hand, is an unpredictable future event that can change just about anything, as we have already learned. So in terms of economic risk, Clinton is a path to probable budget doom whereas Trump can go either way.
But if it infuriates whack jobs like you to think he might, that's a good thing.
Why, exactly, is that a good thing? Please go into detail.
When people get emotionally involved, their higher thought processes shut off and their lizard brain takes over. This is the "systemic heuristic model" of thought processing.
This makes it *much* more likely that they'll make a stupid mistake, and be unable to rationally and intelligently respond to changing situations.
Infuriated people have poor judgment. When you are all stupid and uncoordinated, it's more likely we will prevail.
And just for reference, I've personally TRIED to get people on this forum to engage in intelligent debate about the issues in this election. We're supposed to be the smart people in the room
...to no avail. The best I can get is name-calling.
Can anyone tell me why temporarily banning Muslim immigration from conflict areas is a bad idea? Seems like a common-sense approach to me.
A lot of hay has been made about Trump's support from uneducated voters, largely from this poll, page 36, which puts percent of supporters with "college degree" at 46%.
The press, of course, is quick to point out that 46% is less than half, so they proclaim far and wide that his supporters are "mostly uneducated".
What the press doesn't note, however, is that 70 % of Americans don't have a degree.
Trumps supporters are more educated than the population average.
(A copy of my earlier post, but it seems appropriate here.)
Slashdot had an earlier story about a guy being extradited to the US for doing what every millisecond trading system does.
Yet when actual people are affected, the government doesn't seem to care.
I can draw a parallel to swatting, where the government has to respond by going overboard "just in case" the report turns out to be real, but doesn't bother to investigate the false reports and turns a blind eye to the perpetrators, even when the swatting ends in tragedy.
I wonder what degree of motion sickness a vr helmet would do. One idea i had for a vr game was being suspended by a 3drange of motion harness. Do movements like you're in space in an iron man suit playing a game of soccer... The queasiness of vr and being spun around would probably outweigh the coolness factor.
I had an idea for that, and even set one up in my basement.
It was two parallel lines of square stock, and two more in a "cross" formation, hung parallel to the floor from 4 cables. Each cable went up to the ceiling, right angle through a pulley, around a motorized pulley, out to another pulley further out, and down to the opposite arm of the cross.
The user lies on the cross face down, and the motors running the pulleys can tilt the cross left/right and up/down. An LCD mounts below the user, so that he can see the VR world while lying down. (Of course pads, and metal pegs to hook your feet on for stability. Pad for the face with a hole, in the manner of a massage table.)
The motors I used weren't powerful enough, and controlling them (linear motors) was a bitch.
Twenty years later and I can get powerful steppers on eBay - maybe I should rebuild it.
Firstly, I don't think "agents not being in a new or high-tech call center" is one of the complaints people have about Comcast.
Secondly, Comcast is well known for not allowing customers to terminate the service.
After purchasing the service through Amazon, will you be able to terminate the service?
The fact that it's through Amazon means nothing if you're still routed to Comcast customer service.
It'll still be (*) Comcastic!
(*) Remember the old meme "he's so $something, when you look it up in the dictionary there's a picture of him"? Comcast is so bad, they've got an entry in the urban dictionary. That's sayin' something!
I daresay your response seems a little anti-regulation-ish.
The fault analysis didn't include the software, and indicates that the machine passed FDA muster without even considering the safety aspects of the software. It only states that the company did some testing.
Indeed, it would appear that the FDA accepted the "software is inconsequential" argument at the time of review.
In March 1983, AECL performed a safety analysis on the Therac-25. This analysis was in the form of a fault tree and apparently excluded the software. According to the final report, the analysis made several assumptions:
(1) Programming errors have been reduced by extensive testing on a hardware simulator and under field conditions on teletherapy units. Any residual software errors are not included in the analysis.
(2) Program software does not degrade due to wear, fatigue, or reproduction process.
(3) Computer execution errors are caused by faulty hardware components and by "soft" (random) errors induced by alpha particles and electromagnetic noise.
The fault tree resulting from this analysis does appear to include computer failure, although apparently, judging from these assumptions, it considers only hardware failures. For example, in one OR gate leading to the event of getting the wrong energy, a box contains "Computer selects wrong energy" and a probability of 10^11 is assigned to this event. For "Computer selects wrong mode," a probability of 4 x 10^9 is given. The report provides no justification of either number.
Software in medical devices was considered inconsequential for a couple of decades, and then the Therac device came out and killed several patients.
At the time, the FDA took a close look at software and decided that we need regulations to keep the software more safe.
I look at the programming in cars right now and note that we haven't had our "Therac" moment. Car manufacturers keep closed source and there's no regulations about how the code should be designed for safety. (Safety for the car, yes. Safety for the software, none.)
It'll probably take a couple of hackers making cars floor the accelerator randomly in a city for government to wake up and impose common-sense regulation.
We'll get it straightened out once a couple of people get killed.
[...] citing projects like Tor, Tails (a highly secure Linux distribution) and Debian.
"Tor" and "Debian" are well known and probably don't need explanation, while "Tails" is more obscure and has a quick explanatory note.
This is how you do it, this is a good method. (It's in the original article.)
Looking through the past 3 pages of Slashdot I couldn't find any examples of obscurity, but I found lots of examples of references that had a hint of help for the reader - a word of context or a placing phrase or something that illuminates the subject for the reader.
It looks like things are getting better. Keep up the good work.
[...] When the safety net of stable work is cut, no one is going to want to spend or procreate, and then we're really stuck.
Modern economics isn't a science, it's a jumble of overlapping theories and schools of thought.
By popular economic theory there will be massive starvation and general collapse.
There are different schools of thought which include a guaranteed minimum income, which would give people a life of leisure to pursue whatever they liked. As more and more automation took over, we could have a sci-fi utopian society where everyone's basic needs are met.
That's a worthy goal. Carping about "this change will reduce jobs" is ineffective and pointless.
We should instead try to change the existing "schools of thought" to bring about that utopia.
There is currently no such thing as a 'self driving car', and there won't be for decades to come, and even if there is sooner than that, it'll still require, by law, a qualified driver behind the wheel at all times.
It only makes sense. Uber can reduce the largest cost of taxi services by eliminating the temperamental drivers. This way, they can provide a consistent service that is the same everywhere.
And further note, the taxi companies could *also* do this and get the same benefit
...or they could litigate and complain to the government about unfair competition.
I know how much you ACs love to hate on the president, but at least get your facts straight. The last time a president had as few executive orders per year (over the term of his presidency) as Obama was when Grover Cleveland was president.
As the saying goes, it's not the quantity... it's the quality.
I don't recall Grover Cleveland (or any other president) telling the Justice department not to defend a law(*). Or making an executive order that in effect makes up a new law (and contravenes existing law).
Thinking about the Apple situation, I noted that for years people have predicted that we would live in a corporatocracy.
And here we are, huddling in fear while giant organizations battle for our rights.
It is now too expensive for anyone except the upper 1% to go to court, so we are forced to hope and pray that some organization will take up the cause, leaving us on the sidelines rooting like sports fans.
Of course, those giant entities will only battle for our rights if it aligns with their other goals - Apple isn't opposing this out of their good nature, it's because doing it would cost the money and hurt their bottom line with future sales.
Why can't we all use universal measurements like the meter (1 ten millionth the distance through Paris from the pole to the equator), or the second (1/86400 of the mean solar day), or the kilogram (mass of a lump of metal in Paris, with no relevance to anything), the degree Kelvin ( 1/273.15 the temperature of the triple point of water)?
If we ever meet aliens, they would be totally confused by the American, which use traditional folklore measurements!
The reservoir works by gravity and water pressure. That is how there was no blades. It is basically a man made lagoon except the opening connecting it to the ocean is a series of pipes run underground and out to sea a bit to get deeper and cooler water.
The power plant will take water from the lagoon lowering its level slightly which water from the ocean will flood back in creating a current.
Thank you - that makes sense now.
Would this make a new and interesting X-games thing?
Pay money to get sucked into a nuclear power plant, have your picture taken at the end, get bragging rights at poker night?
Slashdot Mirror
wasn't that the Evil on Man from UNCLE?
The evil group on Man from U.N.C.L.E. was T.H.R.U.S.H.(*)
Perhaps you are thinking of S.P.E.C.T.R.E.(**), the evil group in the James Bond series?
(Or was there a major character in the series I'm missing?)
(*) Technological Hierarchy for the Removal of Undesirables and the Subjugation of Humanity.
(**) SPecial Executive for Counter-intelligence, Terrorism, Revenge and Extortion
Another excerpt from Scott Adams' blog
According to social media, and the mainstream media as well, Trump might be the next Hitler because he does things Hitler would have done. For example:
Trump is charismatic and appeals to our prejudices.
Trump approves of violence against people he thinks deserve it.
Trump blames “others” for the nation’s problems.
Trump has an authoritarian vibe.
All that is true. But it would be equally easy to build a list of why Trump is definitely NOT like Hitler. For example:
Trump is anti-war. Hitler, not so much.
Trump asks us to favor legal citizens over non-citizens. He makes no mention of race. Hitler killed his own citizens and mostly cared about race.
Trump wants citizens to be heavily armed to protect themselves against bad people, including dictators. Hitler didn’t want to arm his potential enemies.
Trump wants greater freedom of speech that would include politically incorrect topics. Hitler wasn’t so big on free speech for others.
Trump assures us his genitalia have “no problem.” Hitler had one testicle.
I really like reading Scott Adams' blog. Unlike most analysis on the planet, he seems to address the issues in a logical, well-reasoned fashion.
According to statistician Nate Silver's site, the strongest predictor of the amount of support for Donald Trump in a given region is the number of Google searches for racist content. No other demographic indicator even comes close.
According to Nate Silver's site, congressional endorsements are a better predictor of who will win the primary elections than polling data.
Oh wait, strike that. That was last November, I still have to catch up on his current position.
I gather that you believe America will have more jobs if it just stops trading with other nations. And your state will have more jobs if you just stop trading with the rest of America. And your town will have more jobs if you just stop trading with the rest of the state. In fact, perhaps we should entirely do without commerce. That might work.
You have a valid point, and one that deserves an answer.
In past decades, free trade agreements were sold to the American public as a way to become richer. Economists admitted that wages would stagnate, but pointed out that goods and services from abroad would be much cheaper so that overall we would be richer.
Wages would stagnate, but costs would go down faster than what wages would have risen.
It's now several decades later, manufacturing has moved to Mexico and China and India, wages have indeed stagnated, and there are Chinese dollar stores everywhere.
The problem with this model is that the benefits went mostly to the rich, while the middle class was gutted. We can look at the past couple of decades with perfect hindsight and see income inequality skyrocket while employment tanked.
Keeping jobs local forces the rich to pay more to produce goods, and acts to prevent this inequality. The extra expenses go into the local economy and benefits Americans, instead of benefiting a people in other countries.
In fact, perhaps we should entirely do without commerce. That might work.
Maybe we should outsource all our jobs to other countries. That would work just as well.
This all assumes increased debt is the worst thing which could happen to the economy. It isn't, not by a long shot.
The United States has a net worth of about $124 trillion in 2014 (source). The total federal deficit is about $19 trillion and the federal deficit is $500 billion. But the total US net worth grows by far more than $500 billion per year, so it is very misleading to say the deficit is a large problem. For instance, the total net worth of US households and non-profits grew by $10 trillion in 2014 alone. If I am going $5000 in debt each year, but my total net worth is growing by $10,000 each year, I am still in a pretty good position.
The risk of damaging the economy with drastic measures is far more dangerous than going a few trillion more in debt. Current federal debt levels are really not that bad when put into perspective, although understandably it is very hard for people to put $500 billion in perspective. But to make it easier, the US is a household with a $248,000 house with $38,000 left on their mortgage, and a family budget losing about $100 per month. That is not a dire situation.
If what you're saying is true, we could eliminate the federal income tax *entirely* and simply go into debt each year for the federal budget.
That's what you're saying, yes? If the federal budget is $3.5 trillion, and we're increasing our national value by $10 trillion a year, then we're still coming out ahead, right?
This would be even better than your analogy of going into debt by $5K while increasing in value by $10K each year.
Why don't we do that then?
Howcome we don't simply eliminate income taxes(*)?
(A rhetorical question to illustrate just how ridiculous your explanation is. It doesn't hold up when taken to its logical conclusion.)
I don't know if it's fair to compare Trump and Sanders. Sanders has a pretty solid, decades old voting record that gives a pretty clear picture of where he stands.
Sanders voted to increase H1B visas at the last round of voting.
How can you support Sanders when he doesn't care whether you (and in the future, your children) have jobs?
From Scott Adams' blog:
But as I learned in school, you can’t compare something to nothing. You need to compare the risk of a Trump presidency to the alternatives. And that alternative is probably a Clinton presidency that is not too different from the current presidency.
So how risky would “more of the same” be?
Budget-wise, we are probably on the road to ruin. The more-of-the-same president is unlikely to stop the special interests and big money players from bloating the budget to the point of crushing debt.
Nor would we have any reason to expect the economy to have any extra zip under a more-of-the-same scenario. So no matter how bad you think Trump might be for the economy, the more-of-the-same alternative is probably a pathway to crushing debts and financial doom.
And once the economy dies, we all die. So as risks go, “more of the same” might be the highest risk of all. The only way we would escape economic doom under the more-of-the-same scenario is for some unpredictable future event to change our direction in a positive way. Is that likely?
Trump, on the other hand, is an unpredictable future event that can change just about anything, as we have already learned. So in terms of economic risk, Clinton is a path to probable budget doom whereas Trump can go either way.
But if it infuriates whack jobs like you to think he might, that's a good thing.
Why, exactly, is that a good thing? Please go into detail.
When people get emotionally involved, their higher thought processes shut off and their lizard brain takes over. This is the "systemic heuristic model" of thought processing.
This makes it *much* more likely that they'll make a stupid mistake, and be unable to rationally and intelligently respond to changing situations.
Infuriated people have poor judgment. When you are all stupid and uncoordinated, it's more likely we will prevail.
And just for reference, I've personally TRIED to get people on this forum to engage in intelligent debate about the issues in this election. We're supposed to be the smart people in the room
Can anyone tell me why temporarily banning Muslim immigration from conflict areas is a bad idea? Seems like a common-sense approach to me.
A lot of hay has been made about Trump's support from uneducated voters, largely from this poll, page 36, which puts percent of supporters with "college degree" at 46%.
The press, of course, is quick to point out that 46% is less than half, so they proclaim far and wide that his supporters are "mostly uneducated".
What the press doesn't note, however, is that 70 % of Americans don't have a degree.
Trumps supporters are more educated than the population average.
(A copy of my earlier post, but it seems appropriate here.)
There is no real risk for the attackers.
Slashdot had an earlier story about a guy being extradited to the US for doing what every millisecond trading system does.
Yet when actual people are affected, the government doesn't seem to care.
I can draw a parallel to swatting, where the government has to respond by going overboard "just in case" the report turns out to be real, but doesn't bother to investigate the false reports and turns a blind eye to the perpetrators, even when the swatting ends in tragedy.
I wonder what degree of motion sickness a vr helmet would do. One idea i had for a vr game was being suspended by a 3drange of motion harness. Do movements like you're in space in an iron man suit playing a game of soccer... The queasiness of vr and being spun around would probably outweigh the coolness factor.
I had an idea for that, and even set one up in my basement.
It was two parallel lines of square stock, and two more in a "cross" formation, hung parallel to the floor from 4 cables. Each cable went up to the ceiling, right angle through a pulley, around a motorized pulley, out to another pulley further out, and down to the opposite arm of the cross.
The user lies on the cross face down, and the motors running the pulleys can tilt the cross left/right and up/down. An LCD mounts below the user, so that he can see the VR world while lying down. (Of course pads, and metal pegs to hook your feet on for stability. Pad for the face with a hole, in the manner of a massage table.)
The motors I used weren't powerful enough, and controlling them (linear motors) was a bitch.
Twenty years later and I can get powerful steppers on eBay - maybe I should rebuild it.
Firstly, I don't think "agents not being in a new or high-tech call center" is one of the complaints people have about Comcast.
Secondly, Comcast is well known for not allowing customers to terminate the service.
After purchasing the service through Amazon, will you be able to terminate the service?
The fact that it's through Amazon means nothing if you're still routed to Comcast customer service.
It'll still be (*) Comcastic!
(*) Remember the old meme "he's so $something, when you look it up in the dictionary there's a picture of him"? Comcast is so bad, they've got an entry in the urban dictionary. That's sayin' something!
I daresay your response seems a little anti-regulation-ish.
The fault analysis didn't include the software, and indicates that the machine passed FDA muster without even considering the safety aspects of the software. It only states that the company did some testing.
Indeed, it would appear that the FDA accepted the "software is inconsequential" argument at the time of review.
Here's is a quote from the analysis:
In March 1983, AECL performed a safety analysis on the Therac-25. This analysis was in the form of a fault tree and apparently excluded the software. According to the final report, the analysis made several assumptions:
(1) Programming errors have been reduced by extensive testing on a hardware simulator and under field conditions on teletherapy units. Any residual software errors are not included in the analysis.
(2) Program software does not degrade due to wear, fatigue, or reproduction process.
(3) Computer execution errors are caused by faulty hardware components and by "soft" (random) errors induced by alpha particles and electromagnetic noise.
The fault tree resulting from this analysis does appear to include computer failure, although apparently, judging from these assumptions, it considers only hardware failures. For example, in one OR gate leading to the event of getting the wrong energy, a box contains "Computer selects wrong energy" and a probability of 10^11 is assigned to this event. For "Computer selects wrong mode," a probability of 4 x 10^9 is given. The report provides no justification of either number.
Software in medical devices was considered inconsequential for a couple of decades, and then the Therac device came out and killed several patients.
At the time, the FDA took a close look at software and decided that we need regulations to keep the software more safe.
I look at the programming in cars right now and note that we haven't had our "Therac" moment. Car manufacturers keep closed source and there's no regulations about how the code should be designed for safety. (Safety for the car, yes. Safety for the software, none.)
It'll probably take a couple of hackers making cars floor the accelerator randomly in a city for government to wake up and impose common-sense regulation.
We'll get it straightened out once a couple of people get killed.
Also this cartoon.
I just this week found this one, cut it out and pasted it on the wall of my office.
I've been telling people for months "I don't do drama" and it's not helping.
Note the following:
[...] citing projects like Tor, Tails (a highly secure Linux distribution) and Debian.
"Tor" and "Debian" are well known and probably don't need explanation, while "Tails" is more obscure and has a quick explanatory note.
This is how you do it, this is a good method. (It's in the original article.)
Looking through the past 3 pages of Slashdot I couldn't find any examples of obscurity, but I found lots of examples of references that had a hint of help for the reader - a word of context or a placing phrase or something that illuminates the subject for the reader.
It looks like things are getting better. Keep up the good work.
Tiny Vermont?
If it's small, something else must be small. I guarantee you there's no problem. I guarantee.
[...] When the safety net of stable work is cut, no one is going to want to spend or procreate, and then we're really stuck.
Modern economics isn't a science, it's a jumble of overlapping theories and schools of thought.
By popular economic theory there will be massive starvation and general collapse.
There are different schools of thought which include a guaranteed minimum income, which would give people a life of leisure to pursue whatever they liked. As more and more automation took over, we could have a sci-fi utopian society where everyone's basic needs are met.
That's a worthy goal. Carping about "this change will reduce jobs" is ineffective and pointless.
We should instead try to change the existing "schools of thought" to bring about that utopia.
There is currently no such thing as a 'self driving car', and there won't be for decades to come, and even if there is sooner than that, it'll still require, by law, a qualified driver behind the wheel at all times.
There's already a self-driving tractor-trailer in Nevada.
It only makes sense. Uber can reduce the largest cost of taxi services by eliminating the temperamental drivers. This way, they can provide a consistent service that is the same everywhere.
And further note, the taxi companies could *also* do this and get the same benefit
Hillary can beat Drumpf without working too hard. [...]
It may not even come to that.
A couple of years ago, Hillary fainted, fell and got a concussion.
It took her over 6 months of recovery, and...
Gave her vertigo and double vision.
Then there was the unnaturally long bathroom break, and the fact that she's always tired and speaks with a hoarse and slightly-raspy voice.
People are starting to wonder whether she will last until the election.
I know how much you ACs love to hate on the president, but at least get your facts straight. The last time a president had as few executive orders per year (over the term of his presidency) as Obama was when Grover Cleveland was president.
As the saying goes, it's not the quantity... it's the quality.
I don't recall Grover Cleveland (or any other president) telling the Justice department not to defend a law(*). Or making an executive order that in effect makes up a new law (and contravenes existing law).
How about his executive orders to kill an American citizen without trial, or that citizens' teenage son (also an American citizen) two weeks later?
But you're right - Obama is way better than other recent presidents because he doesn't issue *as many* executive orders!
(*) That law should have been axed decades ago, but getting rid of it *by that method* is wrong.
Thinking about the Apple situation, I noted that for years people have predicted that we would live in a corporatocracy.
And here we are, huddling in fear while giant organizations battle for our rights.
It is now too expensive for anyone except the upper 1% to go to court, so we are forced to hope and pray that some organization will take up the cause, leaving us on the sidelines rooting like sports fans.
Of course, those giant entities will only battle for our rights if it aligns with their other goals - Apple isn't opposing this out of their good nature, it's because doing it would cost the money and hurt their bottom line with future sales.
What a world we live in!
I know, right?
Why can't we all use universal measurements like the meter (1 ten millionth the distance through Paris from the pole to the equator), or the second (1/86400 of the mean solar day), or the kilogram (mass of a lump of metal in Paris, with no relevance to anything), the degree Kelvin ( 1/273.15 the temperature of the triple point of water)?
If we ever meet aliens, they would be totally confused by the American, which use traditional folklore measurements!
The reservoir works by gravity and water pressure. That is how there was no blades. It is basically a man made lagoon except the opening connecting it to the ocean is a series of pipes run underground and out to sea a bit to get deeper and cooler water.
The power plant will take water from the lagoon lowering its level slightly which water from the ocean will flood back in creating a current.
Thank you - that makes sense now.
Would this make a new and interesting X-games thing?
Pay money to get sucked into a nuclear power plant, have your picture taken at the end, get bragging rights at poker night?
Just a thought...