You have to connect the data lines to negotiate a non-trivial charging rate.
There are a couple of manufacturers who make 'USB condoms' - something that negotiates the charging rate on the data lines but only passes through the power lines.
I've used these (no affiliation, just a customer).
Perhaps you should have paid more attention when they were defining 'irony' in class.
Change the culture of the poor neighborhoods, and the kids in the schools will start to do better
Addressing the poverty tends to do that, but then that becomes a wider problem and that makes it harder to dismiss the poor with a 'change your culture' judgement.
Here's a link to a wikipedia article that sumamrises a meta study that looks at correlations of criminal behaviour, which I'm using as a proxy for your 'horrific culture'.
I note the following, referring to socioeconomic status - "Crime rates and inequality are positively correlated within countries and, particularly, between countries, and this correlation reflects causation from inequality to crime rates, even after controlling for other crime determinants."
The loony left are every bit as bad as the nutjobs on the right. Neither are representative of the majority of people who lean or identify in either direction, but they make convenient punching bags for when people prefer simplistic answers that feed their preconceptions and prejudices. Please, be better than that.
or firehawks (there's something like 5 species of Australian raptor that spreads fire by carrying burning debris past firebreaks as part of a pack hunting strategy. Not news to the Indigenous population, but it's taken a while for the rest of us to pay attention)
I'm going to presume perfect technology to claim/reclaim non-arable land.
I'm going to assume we move all major population centers off the arable land most now sit on.
With these, and similar assumptions, is arable land infinite or finite?
With our current ad-hoc and fairly ineffective management of resources and use of productive land, we've reached limits. We can, with better management, innovation and the glorious hand of the free-market find ways to increase these limits. Maybe even considerably.
Before we reach these 'harder' limits, maybe it's still useful to look at regulating use while we have some capacity to get that right.
I put it to you that this is what was implied by the GP you you so blithely 'corrected'.
Hillary made me despise her all on her own with her snobby bull and that "deplorables" statement.
How did you experience her behaviour, or hear about her 'deplorables' comment? Was it in person, or was it presented through some reportage? Where those reporting that behaviour doing so because they noted an uptick in interest from pieces like that? Did they remain 'topical' for longer as a result of manipulation of systems used to judge 'newsworthiness'?
More, it's easier to smear someone than to persuade that someone is worthwhile. Persuading someone to vote for Trump is difficult. Making Hillary a less appealing candidate is easier (and contrariwise - this isn't a comment on the relative worth of either candidate, just the relative ease of shifting opinion).
Influence doesn't work by persuading one individual at a time to change their mind. It's a subtle process that plays numbers, tips balances and frames discourse. If you can add some phrases and soundbites that the already persuaded can use to shut down criticism, so much the better.
But are we supposed to believe that the Russians have some kind of magical powers to sway every single fucking vote? I think not.
This is an argument from incredulity. No one is claiming that they have the power to sway every vote. The argument is that they made an attempt to sway the vote. The degree to which this could be or was successful is another matter entirely, but the way it would work is certainly not your strawman.
Here's a hint for you. You should actually read history and not quote your favourite blog.
The Nazis arose out of a period with strong socialist movements. They drew, in their earliest days on some similar populations. The 'Socialist' in their name was partly historic and partly an appeal to sentiment. If you read Hitler's thoughts on socialism you'll find it very clear that late/pre-war nazisim was 'socialist' in name only.
Kind of like the People's Democratic Republic of North Korea.
capitalism is the most generous form of governance there is
There's no way I can parse that that makes sense. Strictly, capitalism is defined by private individuals owning/controlling the means of manufacture (trade/profit). I cannot understand where, in that, generosity fits. In as much as capitalism is often associated with some form of free market it's competitive. Still not generous. Please, can you clarify?
You want to enforce charity of others by mandating fees and taxes be placed upon them
Language is important. You call it 'charity' when you describe taxes being used for people other than those that paid them. The problem with a strictly personal and competitive system is that there are numerous cases where individuals are bad at making rational decisions (cognitive biases like discounting future negatives) or where individuals, acting rationally, can cause themselves harm that could be avoided by acting in concert (tragedy of the commons). There are economies of scale that can be achieved where people contribute to a pool and a centralised system provides services or utilities where profit based competition would degrade service (healthcare, utilities) and that's before we look at social contracts and whether being born and raised in a country whose previous generations have provided you with peace, prosperity, education and health obligates you to at least leave the system no worse for your participation.
Call that 'charity' if you will, but you're being either obtuse or misleading.
'Socialism', in its pure form is just as toxic as 'capitalism'. Both need to be regulated and restricted, those countries with the longest history of high standards of living for most of the population have a mix of socialist policies along side of capitalism.
Noting that socialism fails at extremum is trivial. Your inability to consider anything less than 'pure' socialism is a kind of blindness that I can only presume is some relic of the US school system.
You list 4. but how is a military normally a 'free market' item? If you include it, what about other things like infrastructure and utilities? Surely they are better handled by some form of co-operative or government?
What about regulation of shared resources to avoid tragedy of the commons (so indirect involvement in markets via environmental protection for eg)? And here I'm not just talking about things that cause direct health impact, but indirect problems like overgrazing common fields or destroying parkland.
If the latter, then why not legislation that seeks to limit the waste inherent in manufacture of unrepairable products.
The idealised free market doesn't work well for long term costs. We have cognitive biases that discount long term costs vs short term gains. This is an area where an individual, with multiple pressures for limited expenditure may choose a cheaper, non-repairable product because the cost to them is only going to be realised over a term that makes it hard to properly assess on a personal level, but which is distinct at a social or governmental level.
Just the item, or should there exist an obligation by the manufacturer to provide information to assist others in repairing the device they sold? Like specifications, data sheets, codes etc.
This kind of circles back to some of the original reasons for encouraging patents - so that inventions didn't remain a mystery when the inventor died, but that their ideas could go on to be developed. In exchange, they are granted a limited period to monopolise that invention or idea and are protected by law.
This attempt to balance the obligations and rights of a manufacturer so that they and the market they wish to sell to both benefit is what this sort of thing is about.
Growing the economy so that the unemployment rate is at historical lows is caring about those struggling
One of the justifications for the claim that the economy is growing is the number of people employed - but the unemployment rate isn't the best measure, especially on its own. The participation rate for the US has been pretty much flat at about 62-63% for the last four years, and shows a steady decline from 2008 where it was 66%. That's still only looking at people who are actively seeking work. Those who have given up aren't counted, just as those who haven't looked for work in the last 4 weeks are 'unemployed'.
These are not the graphs of an economy in growth. That's mostly fallout from the GFC and finger pointing to either Republicans or Democrats misses the point. There's a problem. It needs work to fix it.
I'm not addressing your "liberal is this; liberal is that" - I'm not from the US and the identity politics that are dividing people who would otherwise have enough in common to reach a useful compromise is deeply distressing.
That a large section of the population feels betrayed and disenfranchised is clear. That their elected representatives are not representing their interests is also clear (with a few, often independent, exceptions). Neither party has the interests of the majority of people - both court the wealthy. Trump's election is a clear indication of this, but neither party seems likely to do anything different. Why should they? They aren't being abandoned by their supporters. Instead, they point their people at the other and demonise them. Republicans blame Democrats; Democrats Republicans. Both parties have loony fringes that are easy to exaggerate and, it seems, easy to convince their supporters are the 'true' face of the 'opposition'.
I've friends who are ex-pat US. They describe the US system of government as one of compromise, with moderates from either of the major parties finding ways to bridge the gap to get things done. The current 'spoiling' play that's started at the highest levels and is being picked up by followers and supporters highlights the weakness of the US 'first past the post' two party system.
Trump isn't likely to be the answer. The 'answer' is going to be a moderate who can convince others to join them in working on a solution. Could be a republican or a democrat, or some third party. Things might need to get worse before they get better.
The GP stated that "you can't even put full-frame lenses on crop-frame cameras" and appeared to be confusing the limitations of Canon's EF-S vs EF mount.
My comments were addressing that and I mentioned 1987 to try to be specific about what I was referring to. If you read that as a contradiction, I apologise for not being clearer, but suggest as well that you consider the context of my statements.
Canon's switch to the EF mount allowed them to move away from mechanical focus and concentrate on a completely electrical interface between body and lens. This gave them a significant advantage in the speed of their auto focus, which is why they captured the sports and (to a lesser extent) nature market in the early 90s and which gave them a significant lead in the early DSLR field.
Nikon AF lenses rely on the body having a focus motor. Most do, but the smaller, lighter Nikon bodies do not and therefore while the AF lenses work, but don't have auto focus. AF-S and AF-P2 have focus motors built in and will work on either bodies that have a focus motor, or newer, lighter bodies that do not. So, while all AF type lenses will fit the Nikon body, some combinations will not have Auto Focus (usually older lenses with newer, lighter bodies). More, when canon went from FD to EF, they sold an adapter to allow older glass to be used with the newer mount. It wasn't ideal, but nor was it 'cannot use'.
So no, Nikon isn't UNIX. They've hacked on their original mount, produced models that aren't completely backward compatible but are only 'mostly' so and were slowed by their need to continue to support their large customer base. Like Microsoft (but done 'right', perhaps). Canon made a clean break with their older tech to implement something new that gave them some significant advantages in the short term. More like Apple.
Caveat - I'm not and have never been a photographer, but I've had friends and partners who were and have sat in on enough discussions, conversations and comparisons to have an interest in the technologies and processes. The competition between these two companies has been nothing but beneficial for customers.
where you can't even put full-frame lenses on crop-frame cameras
I think you mean that there are some lenses made specifically for their crop-sensor line (EF-S) that can't be used on full-frame cameras. You can certainly use any FF Canon lens on a crop body. Why not take advantage of the different format to offer people more choice? EF-S lenses are often cheaper than comparable EF lenses, just as the crop bodies are cheaper than the full frame counterparts
The Canon EF mount goes back to 1987, not as impressive as Nikon's 1959 but not insignificant.
In some ways it's akin to the Apple/OSX and Microsoft/Windows decisions. You can maintain backward compatibility, but at the cost of supporting old systems and standards, or you can make a clean break to allow a better implementation of current technology at the cost of limited backward support via adapters.
Mr Unsworth made the same assumptions you've made, but was under considerably more pressure and without the access to hindsight. His behaviour is understandable. Yours less so.
I've provided links that outline an alternate narrative from before the twitter comments of Musk made the whole thing a valuable news article. Downthread there's another.
I'm not defending Musk's behaviour - it's terrible, but it's not as terrible as people claim - but that doesn't sell as many stories.
1. Musk sends engineers to site and they speak to 'subject matter expert' about possibilities 2. Inflatable Wing assign 30% staff to task, drop production in half. Ship inflatable 'pod' 3. Continued interaction with on-site experts sees 'mini-sub' idea evolve, similar crunch for development and delivery 4. Someone not involved in this interaction who is _not_ a diver (as commonly reported, he's familiar with the caves and relatively local and did some early co-ordination) made some insulting comments. 5. Got insulting comments back.
Musk was in communication with divers and on-site engineers. This was not some 'out of the blue', uninformed decision to turn up with a mini-sub. The uninformed opinion was the ex-pat cave explorer who wasn't involved in the loop and made some assumptions about Musk's involvement. He made some public comments disparaging Musk, Musk fired back. Neither behaved well, but you're holding Musk to a double standard if you condemn him and not the instigator, and you've got your 'facts' from the 'spin' that sold this story.
A limit to a right should only exist where the exercise of that right infringes upon someone else's right. The 'right to swing my fist ends with your nose' kind of thing.
If I have rights to freedom of speech or expression, they may be limited by location. I can be asked to leave private property if what I am saying is unwelcome. My use of a megaphone may well amplify my ability to be heard, but is immaterial for determining whether I should be limited in my right or not.
Your use of a gun to defend yourself may be considered to be disproportionate in some jurisdictions because it violates the rights of your opponent (or potentially, bystanders). The gun, itself, while magnifying the effect of your force is not what is causing the limitation, it's the use of excessive force.
In as much as your speech on the internet may be magnified in effect, the right to speak should not be limited for the _potential_ for impact, but by actual impact. If it is illegal to incite a riot, then whether you do it in a crowded theater or via social media should be moot, the crime is the incitement to riot, not the means you used.
In as much as the only reason to limit a right is where the exercise of that right would impinge on the rights of another, then there is an inherent responsibility in the exercise of any right.
Is something 'wrong' if you don't get caught? If it's 'wrong' to hit someone, it doesn't matter how hard I swing.
Yeah, I remember Affleck said the same thing about Gigli.
From what I've read, 'That Dragon, Cancer' isn't a 'game' in the traditional sense of the word. It's using a kind-of-game format to tell a story. A deeply personal, emotionally intense story. Which is awesome, and wonderful and going to get the sort of praise that arty, tough and interesting films get.
And about the same revenue, for many of the same reasons.
I've bought games on the strength of video of actual gameplay. Given the pressure on journalists to produce reviews that don't see them banned from receiving information or invitations, the last bastion of independent reporting is actual users showing actual gameplay.
If your game sales rely on no-one seeing it actually played, I suspect the problem isn't with the reportage.
Most people I know have no qualms about the way old-school wire-taps worked
Most people are poorly informed and concerned with food, rent and family. It's a poor metric to use.
Wire taps were and probably still are abused. Warrantless surveillance by various parties, warrants issued in a 'rubber stamp' process that makes a joke of oversight and it's not just 'national security'. It's self identifying 'good guys' seeing the restrictions of oversight as something to be overcome so that they can catch the 'bad guys'.
It's not just the oversight mechanisms that are broken, there are significant cultural attitudes that need to change - starting with 'good guy' and 'bad guy' thinking.
You can't claim "voter fraud is rare" when there is no way to detect successful, systemic voter fraud of this nature.
Proving a negative is hard. There have been investigations that have turned up nothing. That's not proof that nothing exists, but it's raised the bar above your hand wave. Can you provide criticism of the methodology of, for example, Trump's Commission on Voter Fraud?
in order for it go be a good idea to take basic steps to limit the possibility of it.
Unless your implication that there's no cost to such a process is false. Those who oppose voter registration claim that there is an uneven burden placed on some members of society. That may not be the case, but if so, please explain why it's not so.
Do you support checking IDs when someone tries to buy alcohol or a firearm?
Alcohol is moot, but your point regarding firearms is fair. My understanding of the reluctance to insist on ID is that voting is such a fundamental right and so necessary for the proper functioning of Democracy that _anything_ that even looks like interfering with the right to vote (such as by making it harder for some to do so) is off-limits. But that seems to apply equally to the right to bear arms which does require ID.
Do you not install security updates until after your shit gets attacked?
Citizens have rights. Your PC does not. You're also assuming that there is a possible attack in the face of investigations that have shown that there isn't and that the cost imposed by 'patching' doesn't weaken a fundamental right.
But, as I said before, the comparison with ID for firearm purchase is sound and persuasive.
(caveat, I'm not from the US so there's a good chance I'm missing something)
In the 90s I worked for a government department, that apart from anything else, assessed applications for eligibility to support payments for children with illness and disability. Diagnoses of ADD and ADHD had spiked in recent years and we saw a number of papers that were starting to study both the illness and the apparent rise in prevalence.
One factor that was suggested was that there were fewer children leaving school to take up an apprenticeship or learn a trade as blue collar work decreased and was devalued. School curriculums were following suit and there were less shop and practical classes and a greater purely academic load.
Increased numbers of single mothers raising children and a link to male heritability meant that there were increasing numbers of children being raised without access to adult males with ADD from whom to learn coping mechanisms or strategies to take advantage of ADD.
At the time, social changes were seen as the primary reason for the increase in diagnoses. There was some debate as to whether behaviour that had been either expected or even rewarded in the past was being seen as a symptom, today, especially in borderline cases.
All of this predates both mobile phones and the internet.
That the constant demand for attention reduces the ability to think deeply seems well attested. That's different to ADD and related only in as much as it tends to exacerbate the condition.
Your 'duress' is a golden age in history. No other people have had so much, nor lived so well.
You have been raised in a community and a society. By the time you were able to make decisions for yourself you've already benefited directly from things society has provided, like education and medicine and indirectly by living in a country with rule of law and relative peace. These were offered as part of a social contract. part of that contract includes limitations to your absolute freedom - a requirement to abide by the laws of society and to make some kind of contribution to the maintenance and upkeep of some of the very things you've already enjoyed.
If you find that implicit contract something that you disagree with, then what do you propose? Why should society continue to provide you with active and passive benefit if you refuse to accept the obligations that implies? Where is the duress? You can leave and find a society more to your choosing at any point. There are even a few places left where you can leave all society behind. Live without obligation and with total freedom.
I'm really struggling to understand this idea of 'duress'.
I'm prepared to accept that a degree of moral flexibility may be acceptable, but this example falls far short.
The legal system deals honestly with thieves, for example.
Being honest to honest people is easy. Maintaining that standard in the face of those who will abuse it is when that is tested.
In the example given of an employer who offers a discount for those who promise not to smoke, trust is being extended. Most will rise to that trust and recognise that their integrity is expected and respected. The morale that that trust generates and the strength it adds to the existing employer/employee relationship can offset a degree of abuse by the dishonest. Most systems can continue to be useful with a degree of parasitism, so even the existence of those who may abuse the system don't, in themselves, eliminate the utility of the trust in the example.
I'm arguing utility because it tends to be a reasonable common denominator.
Co-operation isn't slavery. There exist a spectrum from absolute freedom through the limitations that we negotiate with those we live with to the yoke of tyranny or outright slavery. Your choices, your freedom are constrained by the society in which you live - whether that's explicit in the form of laws, or implicit in the customs and culture, or hidden such as the opportunities that you may or may not access.
The US has some of the best outcomes for medical treatment. For those who can afford it. Some people enjoy the highest standard of living of any other people on the planet or throughout history but for the majority, but a number of measures, the US has significantly poorer outcomes and conditions.
You are kept in line with a lie about economic and social mobility. The US has worse social mobility than other OECD nations, but most of its citizens believe that they too can one day enjoy the sorts of benefits that those at the top enjoy, and so they continue to support a system that has anything but their interests at heart.
Slavery? The US is a master of it. You've a greater percentage of your population in prison than most countries except during civil war (telling, no?). Train enough people to believe they are free already, and you don't even need chains and whips.
Free. Sure, mate. You keep believing that like you've been taught. You've got years of productivity ahead that you're still good for.
Had they been in the US the tragedy would have unfolded in the same way. An experimental treatment that _may_ have offered an extension on life but which cost most of $1.5 million (in one example that I found).
That the NHS cannot and will not cover every treatment should be obvious. Where that line is drawn will always be tragic.
That these are the worst examples you can find either points to a deliberate attempt to appeal to emotion or the shallowness of your argument.
Slashdot Mirror
You have to connect the data lines to negotiate a non-trivial charging rate.
There are a couple of manufacturers who make 'USB condoms' - something that negotiates the charging rate on the data lines but only passes through the power lines.
I've used these (no affiliation, just a customer).
culture ... is to blame. I know you lefties ...
Perhaps you should have paid more attention when they were defining 'irony' in class.
Change the culture of the poor neighborhoods, and the kids in the schools will start to do better
Addressing the poverty tends to do that, but then that becomes a wider problem and that makes it harder to dismiss the poor with a 'change your culture' judgement.
Here's a link to a wikipedia article that sumamrises a meta study that looks at correlations of criminal behaviour, which I'm using as a proxy for your 'horrific culture'.
I note the following, referring to socioeconomic status - "Crime rates and inequality are positively correlated within countries and, particularly, between countries, and this correlation reflects causation from inequality to crime rates, even after controlling for other crime determinants."
The loony left are every bit as bad as the nutjobs on the right. Neither are representative of the majority of people who lean or identify in either direction, but they make convenient punching bags for when people prefer simplistic answers that feed their preconceptions and prejudices. Please, be better than that.
or firehawks (there's something like 5 species of Australian raptor that spreads fire by carrying burning debris past firebreaks as part of a pack hunting strategy. Not news to the Indigenous population, but it's taken a while for the rest of us to pay attention)
I'm going to presume perfect technology to claim/reclaim non-arable land.
I'm going to assume we move all major population centers off the arable land most now sit on.
With these, and similar assumptions, is arable land infinite or finite?
With our current ad-hoc and fairly ineffective management of resources and use of productive land, we've reached limits. We can, with better management, innovation and the glorious hand of the free-market find ways to increase these limits. Maybe even considerably.
Before we reach these 'harder' limits, maybe it's still useful to look at regulating use while we have some capacity to get that right.
I put it to you that this is what was implied by the GP you you so blithely 'corrected'.
Hillary made me despise her all on her own with her snobby bull and that "deplorables" statement.
How did you experience her behaviour, or hear about her 'deplorables' comment? Was it in person, or was it presented through some reportage?
Where those reporting that behaviour doing so because they noted an uptick in interest from pieces like that? Did they remain 'topical' for longer as a result of manipulation of systems used to judge 'newsworthiness'?
More, it's easier to smear someone than to persuade that someone is worthwhile. Persuading someone to vote for Trump is difficult. Making Hillary a less appealing candidate is easier (and contrariwise - this isn't a comment on the relative worth of either candidate, just the relative ease of shifting opinion).
Influence doesn't work by persuading one individual at a time to change their mind. It's a subtle process that plays numbers, tips balances and frames discourse. If you can add some phrases and soundbites that the already persuaded can use to shut down criticism, so much the better.
But are we supposed to believe that the Russians have some kind of magical powers to sway every single fucking vote? I think not.
This is an argument from incredulity. No one is claiming that they have the power to sway every vote. The argument is that they made an attempt to sway the vote. The degree to which this could be or was successful is another matter entirely, but the way it would work is certainly not your strawman.
Here's a hint for you. You should actually read history and not quote your favourite blog.
The Nazis arose out of a period with strong socialist movements. They drew, in their earliest days on some similar populations. The 'Socialist' in their name was partly historic and partly an appeal to sentiment. If you read Hitler's thoughts on socialism you'll find it very clear that late/pre-war nazisim was 'socialist' in name only.
Kind of like the People's Democratic Republic of North Korea.
capitalism is the most generous form of governance there is
There's no way I can parse that that makes sense. Strictly, capitalism is defined by private individuals owning/controlling the means of manufacture (trade/profit).
I cannot understand where, in that, generosity fits. In as much as capitalism is often associated with some form of free market it's competitive. Still not generous. Please, can you clarify?
You want to enforce charity of others by mandating fees and taxes be placed upon them
Language is important. You call it 'charity' when you describe taxes being used for people other than those that paid them. The problem with a strictly personal and competitive system is that there are numerous cases where individuals are bad at making rational decisions (cognitive biases like discounting future negatives) or where individuals, acting rationally, can cause themselves harm that could be avoided by acting in concert (tragedy of the commons). There are economies of scale that can be achieved where people contribute to a pool and a centralised system provides services or utilities where profit based competition would degrade service (healthcare, utilities) and that's before we look at social contracts and whether being born and raised in a country whose previous generations have provided you with peace, prosperity, education and health obligates you to at least leave the system no worse for your participation.
Call that 'charity' if you will, but you're being either obtuse or misleading.
'Socialism', in its pure form is just as toxic as 'capitalism'. Both need to be regulated and restricted, those countries with the longest history of high standards of living for most of the population have a mix of socialist policies along side of capitalism.
Noting that socialism fails at extremum is trivial. Your inability to consider anything less than 'pure' socialism is a kind of blindness that I can only presume is some relic of the US school system.
You list 4. but how is a military normally a 'free market' item? If you include it, what about other things like infrastructure and utilities? Surely they are better handled by some form of co-operative or government?
What about regulation of shared resources to avoid tragedy of the commons (so indirect involvement in markets via environmental protection for eg)?
And here I'm not just talking about things that cause direct health impact, but indirect problems like overgrazing common fields or destroying parkland.
If the latter, then why not legislation that seeks to limit the waste inherent in manufacture of unrepairable products.
The idealised free market doesn't work well for long term costs. We have cognitive biases that discount long term costs vs short term gains. This is an area where an individual, with multiple pressures for limited expenditure may choose a cheaper, non-repairable product because the cost to them is only going to be realised over a term that makes it hard to properly assess on a personal level, but which is distinct at a social or governmental level.
What did you buy?
Just the item, or should there exist an obligation by the manufacturer to provide information to assist others in repairing the device they sold? Like specifications, data sheets, codes etc.
This kind of circles back to some of the original reasons for encouraging patents - so that inventions didn't remain a mystery when the inventor died, but that their ideas could go on to be developed. In exchange, they are granted a limited period to monopolise that invention or idea and are protected by law.
This attempt to balance the obligations and rights of a manufacturer so that they and the market they wish to sell to both benefit is what this sort of thing is about.
Growing the economy so that the unemployment rate is at historical lows is caring about those struggling
One of the justifications for the claim that the economy is growing is the number of people employed - but the unemployment rate isn't the best measure, especially on its own. The participation rate for the US has been pretty much flat at about 62-63% for the last four years, and shows a steady decline from 2008 where it was 66%. That's still only looking at people who are actively seeking work. Those who have given up aren't counted, just as those who haven't looked for work in the last 4 weeks are 'unemployed'.
These are not the graphs of an economy in growth. That's mostly fallout from the GFC and finger pointing to either Republicans or Democrats misses the point. There's a problem. It needs work to fix it.
https://www.lowyinstitute.org/...
I'm not addressing your "liberal is this; liberal is that" - I'm not from the US and the identity politics that are dividing people who would otherwise have enough in common to reach a useful compromise is deeply distressing.
That a large section of the population feels betrayed and disenfranchised is clear. That their elected representatives are not representing their interests is also clear (with a few, often independent, exceptions). Neither party has the interests of the majority of people - both court the wealthy. Trump's election is a clear indication of this, but neither party seems likely to do anything different. Why should they? They aren't being abandoned by their supporters. Instead, they point their people at the other and demonise them. Republicans blame Democrats; Democrats Republicans. Both parties have loony fringes that are easy to exaggerate and, it seems, easy to convince their supporters are the 'true' face of the 'opposition'.
I've friends who are ex-pat US. They describe the US system of government as one of compromise, with moderates from either of the major parties finding ways to bridge the gap to get things done. The current 'spoiling' play that's started at the highest levels and is being picked up by followers and supporters highlights the weakness of the US 'first past the post' two party system.
Trump isn't likely to be the answer. The 'answer' is going to be a moderate who can convince others to join them in working on a solution. Could be a republican or a democrat, or some third party. Things might need to get worse before they get better.
The GP stated that "you can't even put full-frame lenses on crop-frame cameras" and appeared to be confusing the limitations of Canon's EF-S vs EF mount.
My comments were addressing that and I mentioned 1987 to try to be specific about what I was referring to. If you read that as a contradiction, I apologise for not being clearer, but suggest as well that you consider the context of my statements.
Canon's switch to the EF mount allowed them to move away from mechanical focus and concentrate on a completely electrical interface between body and lens. This gave them a significant advantage in the speed of their auto focus, which is why they captured the sports and (to a lesser extent) nature market in the early 90s and which gave them a significant lead in the early DSLR field.
Nikon AF lenses rely on the body having a focus motor. Most do, but the smaller, lighter Nikon bodies do not and therefore while the AF lenses work, but don't have auto focus. AF-S and AF-P2 have focus motors built in and will work on either bodies that have a focus motor, or newer, lighter bodies that do not. So, while all AF type lenses will fit the Nikon body, some combinations will not have Auto Focus (usually older lenses with newer, lighter bodies). More, when canon went from FD to EF, they sold an adapter to allow older glass to be used with the newer mount. It wasn't ideal, but nor was it 'cannot use'.
So no, Nikon isn't UNIX. They've hacked on their original mount, produced models that aren't completely backward compatible but are only 'mostly' so and were slowed by their need to continue to support their large customer base. Like Microsoft (but done 'right', perhaps). Canon made a clean break with their older tech to implement something new that gave them some significant advantages in the short term. More like Apple.
ref: http://www.nikon.com.au/en_AU/...
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Caveat - I'm not and have never been a photographer, but I've had friends and partners who were and have sat in on enough discussions, conversations and comparisons to have an interest in the technologies and processes. The competition between these two companies has been nothing but beneficial for customers.
where you can't even put full-frame lenses on crop-frame cameras
I think you mean that there are some lenses made specifically for their crop-sensor line (EF-S) that can't be used on full-frame cameras. You can certainly use any FF Canon lens on a crop body. Why not take advantage of the different format to offer people more choice? EF-S lenses are often cheaper than comparable EF lenses, just as the crop bodies are cheaper than the full frame counterparts
The Canon EF mount goes back to 1987, not as impressive as Nikon's 1959 but not insignificant.
In some ways it's akin to the Apple/OSX and Microsoft/Windows decisions. You can maintain backward compatibility, but at the cost of supporting old systems and standards, or you can make a clean break to allow a better implementation of current technology at the cost of limited backward support via adapters.
Mr Unsworth made the same assumptions you've made, but was under considerably more pressure and without the access to hindsight. His behaviour is understandable. Yours less so.
I've provided links that outline an alternate narrative from before the twitter comments of Musk made the whole thing a valuable news article. Downthread there's another.
I'm not defending Musk's behaviour - it's terrible, but it's not as terrible as people claim - but that doesn't sell as many stories.
No dispute. I think Musk's conduct was appalling, but the reportage of the incident isn't helping anyone.
Wont take responsibility for finding knowledge on the internet while on the internet.
How cute. The argument from ignorance. Sorry sweety, that's not how the burden of proof works.
You made the claim. Proof's on you
Pathetic.
Indeed. Trolling these days has really hit an all time low.
1. Musk sends engineers to site and they speak to 'subject matter expert' about possibilities
2. Inflatable Wing assign 30% staff to task, drop production in half. Ship inflatable 'pod'
3. Continued interaction with on-site experts sees 'mini-sub' idea evolve, similar crunch for development and delivery
4. Someone not involved in this interaction who is _not_ a diver (as commonly reported, he's familiar with the caves and relatively local and did some early co-ordination) made some insulting comments.
5. Got insulting comments back.
Musk was in communication with divers and on-site engineers. This was not some 'out of the blue', uninformed decision to turn up with a mini-sub.
The uninformed opinion was the ex-pat cave explorer who wasn't involved in the loop and made some assumptions about Musk's involvement. He made some public comments disparaging Musk, Musk fired back. Neither behaved well, but you're holding Musk to a double standard if you condemn him and not the instigator, and you've got your 'facts' from the 'spin' that sold this story.
See https://mashable.com/2018/07/0... and https://www.teslarati.com/elon... for eg. Try to look for links before his Twitter storm and you'll avoid all the 'journalists' quoting/sourcing each other.
No.
A limit to a right should only exist where the exercise of that right infringes upon someone else's right. The 'right to swing my fist ends with your nose' kind of thing.
If I have rights to freedom of speech or expression, they may be limited by location. I can be asked to leave private property if what I am saying is unwelcome. My use of a megaphone may well amplify my ability to be heard, but is immaterial for determining whether I should be limited in my right or not.
Your use of a gun to defend yourself may be considered to be disproportionate in some jurisdictions because it violates the rights of your opponent (or potentially, bystanders). The gun, itself, while magnifying the effect of your force is not what is causing the limitation, it's the use of excessive force.
In as much as your speech on the internet may be magnified in effect, the right to speak should not be limited for the _potential_ for impact, but by actual impact. If it is illegal to incite a riot, then whether you do it in a crowded theater or via social media should be moot, the crime is the incitement to riot, not the means you used.
In as much as the only reason to limit a right is where the exercise of that right would impinge on the rights of another, then there is an inherent responsibility in the exercise of any right.
Is something 'wrong' if you don't get caught? If it's 'wrong' to hit someone, it doesn't matter how hard I swing.
Yeah, I remember Affleck said the same thing about Gigli.
From what I've read, 'That Dragon, Cancer' isn't a 'game' in the traditional sense of the word. It's using a kind-of-game format to tell a story. A deeply personal, emotionally intense story. Which is awesome, and wonderful and going to get the sort of praise that arty, tough and interesting films get.
And about the same revenue, for many of the same reasons.
I've bought games on the strength of video of actual gameplay. Given the pressure on journalists to produce reviews that don't see them banned from receiving information or invitations, the last bastion of independent reporting is actual users showing actual gameplay.
If your game sales rely on no-one seeing it actually played, I suspect the problem isn't with the reportage.
Most people I know have no qualms about the way old-school wire-taps worked
Most people are poorly informed and concerned with food, rent and family. It's a poor metric to use.
Wire taps were and probably still are abused. Warrantless surveillance by various parties, warrants issued in a 'rubber stamp' process that makes a joke of oversight and it's not just 'national security'. It's self identifying 'good guys' seeing the restrictions of oversight as something to be overcome so that they can catch the 'bad guys'.
It's not just the oversight mechanisms that are broken, there are significant cultural attitudes that need to change - starting with 'good guy' and 'bad guy' thinking.
You can't claim "voter fraud is rare" when there is no way to detect successful, systemic voter fraud of this nature.
Proving a negative is hard. There have been investigations that have turned up nothing. That's not proof that nothing exists, but it's raised the bar above your hand wave. Can you provide criticism of the methodology of, for example, Trump's Commission on Voter Fraud?
in order for it go be a good idea to take basic steps to limit the possibility of it.
Unless your implication that there's no cost to such a process is false. Those who oppose voter registration claim that there is an uneven burden placed on some members of society. That may not be the case, but if so, please explain why it's not so.
Do you support checking IDs when someone tries to buy alcohol or a firearm?
Alcohol is moot, but your point regarding firearms is fair. My understanding of the reluctance to insist on ID is that voting is such a fundamental right and so necessary for the proper functioning of Democracy that _anything_ that even looks like interfering with the right to vote (such as by making it harder for some to do so) is off-limits. But that seems to apply equally to the right to bear arms which does require ID.
Do you not install security updates until after your shit gets attacked?
Citizens have rights. Your PC does not. You're also assuming that there is a possible attack in the face of investigations that have shown that there isn't and that the cost imposed by 'patching' doesn't weaken a fundamental right.
But, as I said before, the comparison with ID for firearm purchase is sound and persuasive.
(caveat, I'm not from the US so there's a good chance I'm missing something)
In the 90s I worked for a government department, that apart from anything else, assessed applications for eligibility to support payments for children with illness and disability. Diagnoses of ADD and ADHD had spiked in recent years and we saw a number of papers that were starting to study both the illness and the apparent rise in prevalence.
One factor that was suggested was that there were fewer children leaving school to take up an apprenticeship or learn a trade as blue collar work decreased and was devalued. School curriculums were following suit and there were less shop and practical classes and a greater purely academic load.
Increased numbers of single mothers raising children and a link to male heritability meant that there were increasing numbers of children being raised without access to adult males with ADD from whom to learn coping mechanisms or strategies to take advantage of ADD.
At the time, social changes were seen as the primary reason for the increase in diagnoses. There was some debate as to whether behaviour that had been either expected or even rewarded in the past was being seen as a symptom, today, especially in borderline cases.
All of this predates both mobile phones and the internet.
That the constant demand for attention reduces the ability to think deeply seems well attested. That's different to ADD and related only in as much as it tends to exacerbate the condition.
Your 'duress' is a golden age in history. No other people have had so much, nor lived so well.
You have been raised in a community and a society. By the time you were able to make decisions for yourself you've already benefited directly from things society has provided, like education and medicine and indirectly by living in a country with rule of law and relative peace. These were offered as part of a social contract. part of that contract includes limitations to your absolute freedom - a requirement to abide by the laws of society and to make some kind of contribution to the maintenance and upkeep of some of the very things you've already enjoyed.
If you find that implicit contract something that you disagree with, then what do you propose? Why should society continue to provide you with active and passive benefit if you refuse to accept the obligations that implies? Where is the duress? You can leave and find a society more to your choosing at any point. There are even a few places left where you can leave all society behind. Live without obligation and with total freedom.
I'm really struggling to understand this idea of 'duress'.
Yes.
I'm prepared to accept that a degree of moral flexibility may be acceptable, but this example falls far short.
The legal system deals honestly with thieves, for example.
Being honest to honest people is easy. Maintaining that standard in the face of those who will abuse it is when that is tested.
In the example given of an employer who offers a discount for those who promise not to smoke, trust is being extended. Most will rise to that trust and recognise that their integrity is expected and respected. The morale that that trust generates and the strength it adds to the existing employer/employee relationship can offset a degree of abuse by the dishonest. Most systems can continue to be useful with a degree of parasitism, so even the existence of those who may abuse the system don't, in themselves, eliminate the utility of the trust in the example.
I'm arguing utility because it tends to be a reasonable common denominator.
Co-operation isn't slavery. There exist a spectrum from absolute freedom through the limitations that we negotiate with those we live with to the yoke of tyranny or outright slavery. Your choices, your freedom are constrained by the society in which you live - whether that's explicit in the form of laws, or implicit in the customs and culture, or hidden such as the opportunities that you may or may not access.
The US has some of the best outcomes for medical treatment. For those who can afford it. Some people enjoy the highest standard of living of any other people on the planet or throughout history but for the majority, but a number of measures, the US has significantly poorer outcomes and conditions.
You are kept in line with a lie about economic and social mobility. The US has worse social mobility than other OECD nations, but most of its citizens believe that they too can one day enjoy the sorts of benefits that those at the top enjoy, and so they continue to support a system that has anything but their interests at heart.
Slavery? The US is a master of it. You've a greater percentage of your population in prison than most countries except during civil war (telling, no?). Train enough people to believe they are free already, and you don't even need chains and whips.
Free. Sure, mate. You keep believing that like you've been taught. You've got years of productivity ahead that you're still good for.
Had they been in the US the tragedy would have unfolded in the same way. An experimental treatment that _may_ have offered an extension on life but which cost most of $1.5 million (in one example that I found).
That the NHS cannot and will not cover every treatment should be obvious. Where that line is drawn will always be tragic.
That these are the worst examples you can find either points to a deliberate attempt to appeal to emotion or the shallowness of your argument.