Try FreeFileSync at http://www.freefilesync.org/ . It has Linux versions, but I've used it only on Windows so far, and not as a regular backup tool yet. Its interface also takes a little getting used to at first.
As it happens, that's my next choice. Already installed, will try it this evening.
A long long long time ago I heard exactly the same story.
Here's a blog discussion among scuba divers claiming the exact same event, at the exact same nuclear power plant, that was posted in 2013 (referring to a past, previous event).
So, either this is a hoax, or this happens occasionally at the nuclear power plant in question.
(I *do* have to wonder how something gets sucked into a reservoir without encountering propulsive blades.)
When I first heard the story, it mentioned that there was no warning of any kind to deter scuba divers from that location. The current news story says the same thing.
A few weeks ago I cut the cord and migrated away from Windows to Linux (mint). Was using SyncBack to backup my files, now I need to find a new solution.
I'm on my 5th package, because the first 4 were screwy in various ways. The default backup tool doesn't save profiles, so you have to type in the source and destination every goddamn time. (But when you do, it *does* work.)
"BackInTime" apparently allows multiple profiles, so I created a profile and hit "close" and got the error "default profile source directory invalid". Yep, multiple profiles allowed, but will ONLY run the default profile. Google reports that this is a known issue with the program. "apt-get purge" to the rescue.
It can't be *that hard* to copy files from one place to another. I like to have multiple profiles that I can just click and let run overnight - sometimes it's copying to my backup server, sometimes it's copying to a thumb drive, and sometimes it's a different subset of files.
I live in hope that one of the packages (there's like, two dozen) will do what I want: let me set up a 1-click solution that will copy files to a remote location.
For two decades, wherever I went, everyone who was not italian that I met around the world asked me a question, and I felt silently ashamed facing that simple question: "Why Berlusconi?".
True story:
I was vacationing in Bulgaria in the early 'aughts, was chatting people up on the street and almost got mugged *twice* because I was American (and specifically because of Bush).
I went right back to the hotel and told my GF: "From now on, we are Canadian. If anyone asks, we're from Canada!"
Didn't have any problem after that.
Love Bulgaria, the people are nice, but don't tell them you're American...
Senate vote on the immigration reform bill of 2013. (s.744) Lot of changes but its ultimate purpose was to raise the cap on H-1B and L-1 workers (It didn't pass the Republican controlled House) This bill was heavily lobbied for by Zuckies FWD.us group; a lobby organization made up of tech companies including Apple, Microsoft, Cisco, etc. Passed 68-32, but nays are all Republicans. Of course, afterwards Obama, in his usual dictatorial way, signed an executive order which prevented the deportation of 4 million visa workers by issuing a permits for them, effectively bypassing the will of the people.
Destroying the American tech workforce with visa'd worker is largely a Democratic support effort. Of course, Clinton support H-1B, as well as Cruz, Rubio, and the workers hero: Bernie Sanders.
Thank you!
That was the roll call I've been trying to find off-and-on for the last several months, it's the smoking gun.
Neither the Democrats *nor* the Republicans work to the benefit of the people.
Just FYI, we have a pretty damned good President now who has for five years asked Congress to do basic stuff, like not give tax credits to companies for their exporting American jobs, and instead give those tax credits to companies bringing jobs into the United States.
Holy Christ on a Cracker! Where have you been for the last 8 years?
He flip-flopped on a campaign promise for more campaign money, he ordered the assassination of a US citizen without trial, made the "law" that justified that act secret, ordered his 16-year old son assassinated two weeks later (via drone strike of an outdoor restaurant, killing 8 others), told the justice department not to enforce certain laws, made a completely new law by executive order...
And that last bit, the one giving amnesty to illegal immigrants, would have dropped 2.5 million job-seekers into the workforce overnight!
Obama is every inch as bad or worse than George Bush.
I advocate voting against the incumbent in almost all cases
I'm confused. Are you advocating voting against the incumbent because they are doing a bad job, or because you don't think they should be able to have multiple terms?
Both, actually.
Politicians are given a chance to work for the people, and when they don't I vote against them.
In almost all cases this means voting against the incumbent. It's not a D or R thing, although in any one election I advocate for one or the other(*).
This tends to avoid the "no real choice" argument, or the "throw your vote away" argument, or the "lesser of two evils" argument, all of which are inherently flawed.
It also sends a message to the sitting politicians: help the people or you won't get reelected.
Simply vote on the *history* of the politician in question: if they helped, give them another term.
(In 2000 I was pro-Bush, and *boy* was that a bad idea! Then in 2008 I was pro-Obama, and *boy* was that a bad idea! In-between times I was against whoever was sitting at the time. Even though both Romney and Kerry were poor choices, would they have done worse than re-elected Bush or Obama?)
Trump is a selfish demagogue. He's held every position on every subject. He gleefully advocates war crimes. He's whipping his supporters into sickening frenzies. Once a mob of racist fucks gets moving it's hard to control them. For fucks sake, he's quoting Mussolini, and pretending not to know who David Duke is. Yet here you are, suggesting he is a sane choice.
Seriously, WTF America?
True, all true.
When you compare Trump to a blank slate, the blank slate will win every time.
The blank slate has never advocated war crimes, never flip-flopped on an issue, and never done anything dishonourable or ill-conceived.
If the blank slate were running for president, I'd vote for it!
Now answer my question: Who do you recommend I vote for?
about 3.8 months, unless I dropped a decimal. 6e23 atoms wanted / 6e14 rods means we need to generate 1e9 atoms per rod; at 1e-2 seconds per atom per rod, that's 1e7 seconds or 115ish days.
The paper is restricted (paywalled?), but assuming 600 trillion nanostructures, sqrt(600 trillion) is a square about 24 million on a side. The Platinum atomic radius is about 0.13 nanometers, so rods 1 nanometer wide mean that the "typical sample" is 24 million nanometers on a side, or 24 mm on a side.
Assume a typical sample is 1cm (10 mm) on a side, a square meter would be 100cm x 100cm, or 10,000 times more.
Using your figures, 1e7 becomes 1e3 seconds, or about 15 minutes, unless I dropped a decimal or my assumptions are flawed.
One mole of Hydrogen gas per square meter every 15 minutes is still a pretty small yield, considering that you need sunlight on the entire surface.
Man, it seems like every Slashdot discussion thread lately has almost immediately devolved into a Democat versus Republican bash-fest. I realize this story is about what a couple Republican senators did; but can't you guys manage to discuss any issue without turning your brains completely off?
It's easy to fall into hoping that that the fascist buffoon Trump doesn't win the candidacy. But then when you get reminded of the policies of the rest of them, you realise there is no good alternative there.
The only real hope is that the Democrats win the presidency again.
Let's recall the summer of 2008, when Obama flip-flopped on telecom immunity, got more campaign contributions from the telecoms, was able to spend more on campaigning, and was able to win the presidency.
If the leader of your party can be that blatant, why should *anyone* vote for them?
You are falling into the false dilemma of R versus D. The real dilemma is "us" versus "them", or "people" versus the "elites".
The people are on one end of a long spectrum of political issues, and both the Republicans and Democrats are on the other. Arguing that D is better than R is pointless, neither represents the interests of the people.
Extreme rhetoric, which is what you're using (viz: fascist buffoon), is only relevant to that distant end of the spectrum. The elites make more or less contributions, depending on how much extreme rhetoric gets aimed at any candidate.
It's a game that only mainstream politicians play.
Both Donald and Bernie have populist views, their political positions would benefit the people.
Bernie is a mainstream politician, and is somewhat dependent on contributions from the elites. If he can overcome that burden and win the nomination, then he'd be one candidate to back.
Donald needs *no* contributions from the elites, so he's free to promise benefits to the people.
Right now Donald is our best hope for getting government on our side. He's not the only hope, Bernie is still in the game, but there's no hope in any of the other choices.
The politicians tell us is that giving perks to big companies will create jobs.
This is a lie.
Jobs are created when people *start* companies, or when small companies grow. Big companies generally have all the workforce they need, and don't hire more people just because they get more money.
Indeed - it's the big companies who look to cut costs by shaving quality or outsourcing or moving to Ireland. You don't generally see the small, lean, hungry startups looking to outsource from India or move to Ireland.
I cringe when I see the federal government giving [ice cream maker] Ben and Jerry's a grant of $200,000 to increase their competitiveness, because that money spent on sales training could fund 4 small startups, employing 5-7 people each.
Next time you hear a politician, check to see if their speech doesn't end with "and this means more jobs" or similar. It's their way of selling their influence and making it palatable to the voters.
Or is this story about people dumb enough to read and react to what this guy says?
Curiously, 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".
A pathological narcissist, a skilled liar, and possibly a sociopath.
Ya know, you're right. After reading your post, I've had a realization that Trump is everything YOU say he is, and am switching my support to $YourCandidate.
...and this is one of the problems with the current elections, and previous ones. People think that name calling makes a difference, that saying something is "dumb" will make others change their views.
It works if you're an insider, because other insiders are the ones who give you campaign money. If a politician says something slightly controversial, the press takes it to an unreasonable extreme and spashes it everywhere, your big-money donations dry up, and you end up spending less on your campaign. And the candidate that spends the most money wins the election(*).
Unreasonable extreme? Trump is compared unfavorably to Hitler, he's the "nightmare scenario", his presidency is "too terrible to contemplate". I just read an article that started "Trump will be elected, and this will start humanity's dark final chapter".
Trump is a populist candidate, his support comes from the people, not the elites. He plays the media like a violin, using it for free advertising and otherwise ignoring the insiders.
(I read an article where one of the Koch brothers was quoted "You’d think we could have more influence".)
His statements are not "mindless rhetoric", they're just ignored, pushed out of context, and ridiculed. No one *anywhere* posts a discussion of why building a wall is a bad idea, or whether having a temporary ban on muslims from conflict areas can't be done, or whether simplifying the US tax code is a good idea.
You think he's Alien vs. Predator? Call him Cthulhu for all we care.
No one cares what you say.
(*) True to a high degree of probability in the high-level elections, less so at the state and local level.
The elites in this country are quick to frame everything in terms of "left" and "right", "Liberal" versus "Conservative", and so on.
I've come to the realization that this is a false distinction, made to distract people from the issues and give the illusion of choice.
The real choice is populist (in the interests of the people) and non-populist (to the interests of anyone else).
Both Liberals and Conservatives in this country are on the non-populist end of that spectrum. All bad government actions have bipartisan support, whether it's H1B visa programs taking away our jobs, Patriot act(s) taking away our rights, our 3rd world health care, draconian IP laws passed by secret treaty, killing citizens without trial, secret laws, secret lists... it goes on and on.
What good does it do to argue that D's are better than R's when neither side will present a unified front on our behalf?
Take up the cause and tell us how such-and-so was Bush's fault. Someone will point out that the Democrats controlled congress during that time. Someone else will point out that the bill's opposition was mostly Democratic.
Therefore we should vote for the D's - they're always on the correct side of a losing battle.
One way out is to always vote against the incumbent. If enough people do this and the pols realize that a non-populist term will be their only term, we'll eventually see change.
This election presents a rare choice of two populist candidates: Bernie and Donald. It's apparent that neither is traditionally "left" or "right", so if one of them wins we might get some actual change.
Pay no attention to the name callers you see in the media, or even on Slashdot - that's just the elites trying to sway your vote by emotional means.
Look at their policies, and ask the question: if this policy were implemented, would the *people* benefit?
If the answer is "yes", then that's the candidate we need.
Why the planck constant then? Why not e, or (pi), or any other constant, for that matter? If you're going to change the definition, isn't it just a matter of choosing the close enough factor?
By the way, I'm asking. I am ignorant about this.
The fundamental distinction between math and physics is measurement. We need to base the physical constants on something measured from the universe we're interested in.
As a simple example, mathematics defines and explores 3 basic forms of geometry: Euclidean, hyperbolic, and elliptic.
The distinction between these is based on the curvature of space as defined by the behaviour of parallel lines: if parallel lines eventually meet, then space has positive curvature like the surface of a sphere. If parallel lines diverge, then space has a negative curvature like the surface of a saddle. And if parallel lines stay parallel, then space has zero curvature and is Euclidean.
Three equally valid forms of geometry, but which one does the universe have? To choose the correct model, we have to measure the actual universe.
The same is true with the fundamental physical constants. There's any number of ways to base our measurements on pure math, but these don't necessarily reflect the reality we live in.
1. How do you propose funding websites, if not with ads?
That sounds suspiciously like "not my problem".
Wait, let me check... yup. It's definitely "not my problem".
The obvious solution is, of course, is for users to not use ad blocking software.
There's no other way possible, no conceivable genius in this universe could come up with any other scheme.
(Also, we solve *our* problems, not *yours*. Our problems included malware, bandwidth hogging, delaying while bidding, and we've effectively fixed that. Did you want first crack at fixing these problems? We probably should have warned you. Oh wait... we did.)
My go-to person for security issues is Bruce Schneier. Here's what he says about the issue:
The current case is about a single iPhone 5c, but the precedent it sets will apply to all smartphones, computers, cars and everything the Internet of Things promises. The danger is that the court's demands will pave the way to the FBI forcing Apple and others to reduce the security levels of their smart phones and computers, as well as the security of cars, medical devices, homes, and everything else that will soon be computerized. The FBI may be targeting the iPhone of the San Bernardino shooter, but its actions imperil us all.
He elaborates on this in another section:
This is an existing vulnerability in iPhone security that could be exploited by anyone.
There's nothing preventing the FBI from writing that hacked software itself, aside from budget and manpower issues. There's every reason to believe, in fact, that such hacked software has been written by intelligence organizations around the world. Have the Chinese, for instance, written a hacked Apple operating system that records conversations and automatically forwards them to police? They would need to have stolen Apple's code-signing key so that the phone would recognize the hacked as valid, but governments have done that in the past with other keys and other companies. We simply have no idea who already has this capability.
The best solution I've seen so far, from right here on Slashdot, is to have future firmware updates require the phone to be unlocked. IOW, the user is presented with an alert, and the user must type in the passcode before the update is applied.
This would seem to solve the problem for future releases, Apple could legitimately say that there's no way to unlock the phone.
Slashdot Mirror
Try FreeFileSync at http://www.freefilesync.org/ . It has Linux versions, but I've used it only on Windows so far, and not as a regular backup tool yet. Its interface also takes a little getting used to at first.
As it happens, that's my next choice. Already installed, will try it this evening.
A long long long time ago I heard exactly the same story.
Here's a blog discussion among scuba divers claiming the exact same event, at the exact same nuclear power plant, that was posted in 2013 (referring to a past, previous event).
So, either this is a hoax, or this happens occasionally at the nuclear power plant in question.
(I *do* have to wonder how something gets sucked into a reservoir without encountering propulsive blades.)
When I first heard the story, it mentioned that there was no warning of any kind to deter scuba divers from that location. The current news story says the same thing.
I mean, it is *exactly* the same story!
Does this happen often?
A few weeks ago I cut the cord and migrated away from Windows to Linux (mint). Was using SyncBack to backup my files, now I need to find a new solution.
I'm on my 5th package, because the first 4 were screwy in various ways. The default backup tool doesn't save profiles, so you have to type in the source and destination every goddamn time. (But when you do, it *does* work.)
"BackInTime" apparently allows multiple profiles, so I created a profile and hit "close" and got the error "default profile source directory invalid". Yep, multiple profiles allowed, but will ONLY run the default profile. Google reports that this is a known issue with the program. "apt-get purge" to the rescue.
It can't be *that hard* to copy files from one place to another. I like to have multiple profiles that I can just click and let run overnight - sometimes it's copying to my backup server, sometimes it's copying to a thumb drive, and sometimes it's a different subset of files.
I live in hope that one of the packages (there's like, two dozen) will do what I want: let me set up a 1-click solution that will copy files to a remote location.
Four down, about 20 to go. I live in hope.
For two decades, wherever I went, everyone who was not italian that I met around the world asked me a question, and I felt silently ashamed facing that simple question: "Why Berlusconi?".
True story:
I was vacationing in Bulgaria in the early 'aughts, was chatting people up on the street and almost got mugged *twice* because I was American (and specifically because of Bush).
I went right back to the hotel and told my GF: "From now on, we are Canadian. If anyone asks, we're from Canada!"
Didn't have any problem after that.
Love Bulgaria, the people are nice, but don't tell them you're American...
Sanders.
Bernie Sanders voted to increase H1-B visas.
Advocating Sanders to people who were (just now) replaced by outsourcing is a bit disingenuous, don't you think?
http://www.senate.gov/legislat...
Senate vote on the immigration reform bill of 2013. (s.744) Lot of changes but its ultimate purpose was to raise the cap on H-1B and L-1 workers (It didn't pass the Republican controlled House)
This bill was heavily lobbied for by Zuckies FWD.us group; a lobby organization made up of tech companies including Apple, Microsoft, Cisco, etc. Passed 68-32, but nays are all Republicans. Of course, afterwards Obama, in his usual dictatorial way, signed an executive order which prevented the deportation of 4 million visa workers by issuing a permits for them, effectively bypassing the will of the people.
Destroying the American tech workforce with visa'd worker is largely a Democratic support effort. Of course, Clinton support H-1B, as well as Cruz, Rubio, and the workers hero: Bernie Sanders.
Thank you!
That was the roll call I've been trying to find off-and-on for the last several months, it's the smoking gun.
Neither the Democrats *nor* the Republicans work to the benefit of the people.
Just FYI, we have a pretty damned good President now who has for five years asked Congress to do basic stuff, like not give tax credits to companies for their exporting American jobs, and instead give those tax credits to companies bringing jobs into the United States.
Holy Christ on a Cracker! Where have you been for the last 8 years?
He flip-flopped on a campaign promise for more campaign money, he ordered the assassination of a US citizen without trial, made the "law" that justified that act secret, ordered his 16-year old son assassinated two weeks later (via drone strike of an outdoor restaurant, killing 8 others), told the justice department not to enforce certain laws, made a completely new law by executive order...
And that last bit, the one giving amnesty to illegal immigrants, would have dropped 2.5 million job-seekers into the workforce overnight!
Obama is every inch as bad or worse than George Bush.
I'll never vote Democratic again!
I advocate voting against the incumbent in almost all cases
I'm confused. Are you advocating voting against the incumbent because they are doing a bad job, or because you don't think they should be able to have multiple terms?
Both, actually.
Politicians are given a chance to work for the people, and when they don't I vote against them.
In almost all cases this means voting against the incumbent. It's not a D or R thing, although in any one election I advocate for one or the other(*).
This tends to avoid the "no real choice" argument, or the "throw your vote away" argument, or the "lesser of two evils" argument, all of which are inherently flawed.
It also sends a message to the sitting politicians: help the people or you won't get reelected.
Simply vote on the *history* of the politician in question: if they helped, give them another term.
(In 2000 I was pro-Bush, and *boy* was that a bad idea! Then in 2008 I was pro-Obama, and *boy* was that a bad idea! In-between times I was against whoever was sitting at the time. Even though both Romney and Kerry were poor choices, would they have done worse than re-elected Bush or Obama?)
Neither a Democrat nor a Republican be.
"And to thine own self be true, and it must follow, as the night the day, thou canst not then be false to any man."
I'm neither a D nor an R, I advocate voting against the incumbent in almost all cases.
This election I'm making an exception for Trump and Sanders, because both of them are non-mainstream.
If not Trump,
Are you fucking kidding me?
Trump is a selfish demagogue. He's held every position on every subject. He gleefully advocates war crimes. He's whipping his supporters into sickening frenzies. Once a mob of racist fucks gets moving it's hard to control them. For fucks sake, he's quoting Mussolini, and pretending not to know who David Duke is. Yet here you are, suggesting he is a sane choice.
Seriously, WTF America?
True, all true.
When you compare Trump to a blank slate, the blank slate will win every time.
The blank slate has never advocated war crimes, never flip-flopped on an issue, and never done anything dishonourable or ill-conceived.
If the blank slate were running for president, I'd vote for it!
Now answer my question: Who do you recommend I vote for?
Someone who isn't a Nazi
Trump isn't a nazi...
Donald Trump will wave his magic wand and force all American multinationals to keep jobs in the US.
If not Trump, then who do you recommend I vote for?
about 3.8 months, unless I dropped a decimal. 6e23 atoms wanted / 6e14 rods means we need to generate 1e9 atoms per rod; at 1e-2 seconds per atom per rod, that's 1e7 seconds or 115ish days.
The paper is restricted (paywalled?), but assuming 600 trillion nanostructures, sqrt(600 trillion) is a square about 24 million on a side. The Platinum atomic radius is about 0.13 nanometers, so rods 1 nanometer wide mean that the "typical sample" is 24 million nanometers on a side, or 24 mm on a side.
Assume a typical sample is 1cm (10 mm) on a side, a square meter would be 100cm x 100cm, or 10,000 times more.
Using your figures, 1e7 becomes 1e3 seconds, or about 15 minutes, unless I dropped a decimal or my assumptions are flawed.
One mole of Hydrogen gas per square meter every 15 minutes is still a pretty small yield, considering that you need sunlight on the entire surface.
The problem with Biological Supercomputers Powered By ATP, is that they're always 5 to 10 years out.
When are we going to see something that isn't just a lab demo?
Man, it seems like every Slashdot discussion thread lately has almost immediately devolved into a Democat versus Republican bash-fest. I realize this story is about what a couple Republican senators did; but can't you guys manage to discuss any issue without turning your brains completely off?
Extreme rhetoric is the new clickbait.
Trump is the worst possible president you could possibly imagine, [...]
It sounds like you are exaggerating. Was that your intent?
One thing many people have learned is that extreme rhetoric is baseless - it's clickbait to get people to read a particular news story.
While a newspaper can be excused for trying to attract readership, when "some random dude on the internet" does it it's 'kind of meaningless.
You know?
Instead, why don't you pick one of his positions and explain why it is a bad idea? Enforcing immigration law, or revamping the tax code for instance.
It's easy to fall into hoping that that the fascist buffoon Trump doesn't win the candidacy. But then when you get reminded of the policies of the rest of them, you realise there is no good alternative there.
The only real hope is that the Democrats win the presidency again.
Let's recall the summer of 2008, when Obama flip-flopped on telecom immunity, got more campaign contributions from the telecoms, was able to spend more on campaigning, and was able to win the presidency.
If the leader of your party can be that blatant, why should *anyone* vote for them?
You are falling into the false dilemma of R versus D. The real dilemma is "us" versus "them", or "people" versus the "elites".
The people are on one end of a long spectrum of political issues, and both the Republicans and Democrats are on the other. Arguing that D is better than R is pointless, neither represents the interests of the people.
Extreme rhetoric, which is what you're using (viz: fascist buffoon), is only relevant to that distant end of the spectrum. The elites make more or less contributions, depending on how much extreme rhetoric gets aimed at any candidate.
It's a game that only mainstream politicians play.
Both Donald and Bernie have populist views, their political positions would benefit the people.
Bernie is a mainstream politician, and is somewhat dependent on contributions from the elites. If he can overcome that burden and win the nomination, then he'd be one candidate to back.
Donald needs *no* contributions from the elites, so he's free to promise benefits to the people.
Right now Donald is our best hope for getting government on our side. He's not the only hope, Bernie is still in the game, but there's no hope in any of the other choices.
Or, to quote Charles Koch: "You’d Think We Could Have More Influence’ on 2016 Race".
The politicians tell us is that giving perks to big companies will create jobs.
This is a lie.
Jobs are created when people *start* companies, or when small companies grow. Big companies generally have all the workforce they need, and don't hire more people just because they get more money.
Indeed - it's the big companies who look to cut costs by shaving quality or outsourcing or moving to Ireland. You don't generally see the small, lean, hungry startups looking to outsource from India or move to Ireland.
I cringe when I see the federal government giving [ice cream maker] Ben and Jerry's a grant of $200,000 to increase their competitiveness, because that money spent on sales training could fund 4 small startups, employing 5-7 people each.
Next time you hear a politician, check to see if their speech doesn't end with "and this means more jobs" or similar. It's their way of selling their influence and making it palatable to the voters.
SINCE WHEN?
We're just about to discover a cure for aging.
Didn't you get the memo?
Or is this story about people dumb enough to read and react to what this guy says?
Curiously, 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.
Feel free to call us dumb, it helps us change our vote to $your candidate!
(Oh, hey! Want to go out behind the trailer and shoot at beer cans with my .22?)
A pathological narcissist, a skilled liar, and possibly a sociopath.
Ya know, you're right. After reading your post, I've had a realization that Trump is everything YOU say he is, and am switching my support to $YourCandidate.
It works if you're an insider, because other insiders are the ones who give you campaign money. If a politician says something slightly controversial, the press takes it to an unreasonable extreme and spashes it everywhere, your big-money donations dry up, and you end up spending less on your campaign. And the candidate that spends the most money wins the election(*).
Unreasonable extreme? Trump is compared unfavorably to Hitler, he's the "nightmare scenario", his presidency is "too terrible to contemplate". I just read an article that started "Trump will be elected, and this will start humanity's dark final chapter".
Trump is a populist candidate, his support comes from the people, not the elites. He plays the media like a violin, using it for free advertising and otherwise ignoring the insiders.
(I read an article where one of the Koch brothers was quoted "You’d think we could have more influence".)
His statements are not "mindless rhetoric", they're just ignored, pushed out of context, and ridiculed. No one *anywhere* posts a discussion of why building a wall is a bad idea, or whether having a temporary ban on muslims from conflict areas can't be done, or whether simplifying the US tax code is a good idea.
You think he's Alien vs. Predator? Call him Cthulhu for all we care.
No one cares what you say.
(*) True to a high degree of probability in the high-level elections, less so at the state and local level.
The elites in this country are quick to frame everything in terms of "left" and "right", "Liberal" versus "Conservative", and so on.
I've come to the realization that this is a false distinction, made to distract people from the issues and give the illusion of choice.
The real choice is populist (in the interests of the people) and non-populist (to the interests of anyone else).
Both Liberals and Conservatives in this country are on the non-populist end of that spectrum. All bad government actions have bipartisan support, whether it's H1B visa programs taking away our jobs, Patriot act(s) taking away our rights, our 3rd world health care, draconian IP laws passed by secret treaty, killing citizens without trial, secret laws, secret lists... it goes on and on.
What good does it do to argue that D's are better than R's when neither side will present a unified front on our behalf?
Take up the cause and tell us how such-and-so was Bush's fault. Someone will point out that the Democrats controlled congress during that time. Someone else will point out that the bill's opposition was mostly Democratic.
Therefore we should vote for the D's - they're always on the correct side of a losing battle.
One way out is to always vote against the incumbent. If enough people do this and the pols realize that a non-populist term will be their only term, we'll eventually see change.
This election presents a rare choice of two populist candidates: Bernie and Donald. It's apparent that neither is traditionally "left" or "right", so if one of them wins we might get some actual change.
Pay no attention to the name callers you see in the media, or even on Slashdot - that's just the elites trying to sway your vote by emotional means.
Look at their policies, and ask the question: if this policy were implemented, would the *people* benefit?
If the answer is "yes", then that's the candidate we need.
Why the planck constant then? Why not e, or (pi), or any other constant, for that matter? If you're going to change the definition, isn't it just a matter of choosing the close enough factor?
By the way, I'm asking. I am ignorant about this.
The fundamental distinction between math and physics is measurement. We need to base the physical constants on something measured from the universe we're interested in.
As a simple example, mathematics defines and explores 3 basic forms of geometry: Euclidean, hyperbolic, and elliptic.
The distinction between these is based on the curvature of space as defined by the behaviour of parallel lines: if parallel lines eventually meet, then space has positive curvature like the surface of a sphere. If parallel lines diverge, then space has a negative curvature like the surface of a saddle. And if parallel lines stay parallel, then space has zero curvature and is Euclidean.
Three equally valid forms of geometry, but which one does the universe have? To choose the correct model, we have to measure the actual universe.
The same is true with the fundamental physical constants. There's any number of ways to base our measurements on pure math, but these don't necessarily reflect the reality we live in.
To do that, we need to take a measurement.
1. How do you propose funding websites, if not with ads?
That sounds suspiciously like "not my problem".
Wait, let me check... yup. It's definitely "not my problem".
The obvious solution is, of course, is for users to not use ad blocking software.
There's no other way possible, no conceivable genius in this universe could come up with any other scheme.
(Also, we solve *our* problems, not *yours*. Our problems included malware, bandwidth hogging, delaying while bidding, and we've effectively fixed that. Did you want first crack at fixing these problems? We probably should have warned you. Oh wait... we did.)
My go-to person for security issues is Bruce Schneier. Here's what he says about the issue:
The current case is about a single iPhone 5c, but the precedent it sets will apply to all smartphones, computers, cars and everything the Internet of Things promises. The danger is that the court's demands will pave the way to the FBI forcing Apple and others to reduce the security levels of their smart phones and computers, as well as the security of cars, medical devices, homes, and everything else that will soon be computerized. The FBI may be targeting the iPhone of the San Bernardino shooter, but its actions imperil us all.
He elaborates on this in another section:
This is an existing vulnerability in iPhone security that could be exploited by anyone.
There's nothing preventing the FBI from writing that hacked software itself, aside from budget and manpower issues. There's every reason to believe, in fact, that such hacked software has been written by intelligence organizations around the world. Have the Chinese, for instance, written a hacked Apple operating system that records conversations and automatically forwards them to police? They would need to have stolen Apple's code-signing key so that the phone would recognize the hacked as valid, but governments have done that in the past with other keys and other companies. We simply have no idea who already has this capability.
The best solution I've seen so far, from right here on Slashdot, is to have future firmware updates require the phone to be unlocked. IOW, the user is presented with an alert, and the user must type in the passcode before the update is applied.
This would seem to solve the problem for future releases, Apple could legitimately say that there's no way to unlock the phone.