That's because George II was in charge when the sub-prime mortgage crisis happened.
Which was created by the CRA that was enacted under, umm, let's see, who was that? And exacerbated by Frank when he denied there was any problem at all, when Bush was trying to get better regulation put in place. It may have come to a crisis during Bush, but it began a long time before that. It needed to reach critical mass, just like people tell us there is a tipping point in global climate change. Tomorrow's crisis will come from CO2 emitted a decade ago. The banking crisis was the result of bad policy forced on the banks a long time before -- and which included pressure from a lot of community activist groups, one of which BO played a large part in promoting long before he entered the Senate.
Stop pretending there is any left in US politics,
Except for the left, you're right.
So, on-topic for a minute. Of course the FCC wasn't hacked. The comment system that was designed to make it easy for people to make comments without a horrendous authentication system getting in the way allowed people to make comments without a horrendous authentication system getting in the way. Most proceedings don't attract hoards of people who feel no compulsion to be honest about their identities; this one did. Go figure how that would turn out.
Not only will Microsoft NOT force me to use "the New Skype" when it comes out, it won't LET me use the old one.
I tried using it a couple of months ago and I couldn't remember my password. Part of the "prove to us you own the account" process Microsoft has is "what is the last password you remember?" Well, deary, since there's only ever been one password on the account. if I could remember the last one I wouldn't have to be trying to reset it, now would I?
I'd mostly agree with that. A page may contain 20 thumbnail images from nerdporn.com, on a page loaded from nerporn.com. It would be silly for the browser to load that one page by asking the OS to look up nerdporn.com 21 times in one second.
Twenty times. The first lookup will be for nerporn.com. But then, that's why DNS servers CACHE answers. And, it fact, I believe that Windows and many flavors of Linux cache it on-system to begin with (I think it is "nsd".)
It is also considerably different for Firefox to do its own caching than for it to IGNORE the system-configured DNS server altogether.
Settings should be available for the 0.1% who will use them.
The problem is that "settings" are only changeable after you run Firefox.
This shows up on every installation of Firefox, where the first thing it does is run back to home base to report the new installation. AFTER your installation is reported, you can change the home screen. And, IIRC, you get to have all the crap on the "blank page" active and call home before you can configure your blank page to be almost blank. You can't quite get all the way there -- the settings widget is always there to let you turn on useless crap.
That said, I'm not convinced that this particular choice is best for the 99% who don't know what we're talking about.
It isn't. People will be calling their ISP tech support wondering why Firefox can/cannot locate a page that IE cannot/can find, and someone will have to recognize that Firefox is ignoring the ISP-configured DNS server (which may have local names installed) in preference to Cloudflare.
"We know better how to configure your computer than you do" is not a good marketing tactic.
Sounds like they want clarification on how, exactly, the FCC fucked up so they can use that against them in the future.
Sounds to me like they want to get a ruling to prevent the next liberal "rule by fiat" President from simply reinstating the same rules by fiat. If the FCC can point to a SCOTUS decision that said they shouldn't have created rules outside their scope of authority when President Next issues his Executive Order putting them back, then we can avoid the executive branch politicization of this legislative branch football.
What if the dingaling for New Guy Cable causes an outage for my whole neighborhood
How about holding the new Guy responsible to repair or pay for repairing the damage when they do that ?
So New Guy Cable installer causes an outage. This forces Incumbent to spend money fixing it, maybe lost revenue when pay-per-view users cannot view what they want to pay for. Then Incumbent has to not only prove that New Cable installer moved their stuff, but that he broke it when he did. It goes to court, it takes years to resolve. In the meantime, New Cable goes bankrupt because they didn't get enough subs and they have to pay a bunch of lawyers to defend them.
You WANT to create a system where the only people who win are the lawyers, and everyone else loses?
By the way, I believe if the incumbents are THAT concerned, they have the opportunity to do the work themselves, if they don't delay
It could be extremely costly for an incumbent to have to hire a contractor on short notice, and a lot of such infrastructure work is done by contractors.
Let's put it in a standard analogy form. Would you be happy if someone wanted to park in the space your car is located and he could just move your car out of the way on his own? Or closer to the actual circumstances -- you parked too close to the line in your space, and instead of waiting for you to move your car someone else could hire a tow truck to move you?
No. The Hebrew word we translate as "soul" and "spirit" are "nephesh" for soul, and "ruash" and "neshamah" for spirit, the three of which mean "breathe".
Yes, the source of the first spirit (soul) was from a breath. That does not mean that the source of every other soul is from a breath taken by the baby. The word acknowledges where the first one came from, not requires that every following one come the same way.
No, I didn't. Those verses refer to the death of the would-be mother and/or of the would-be father.
Oh, cool. then murder is just "mischief" according to the Bible. Good to know.
In fact, even American evangelicals only began believing this during the 1970's.
Uhhh, no. I'm old enough to know better. The fact that it became a widely-discussed issue on the 70's doesn't mean that it wasn't believed to be killing before that. It took having laws legitimizing that killing to get to Rowe vs. Wade in 1973.
Are you sure it is a robot? Are sure there isn't someone behind it whose life will end if you unplug?
Yes, and Yes. You can find this device for sale, which would be illegal were it a person. The experiment was conducted by a researcher at a German university, which will have an oversite process to ensure that no harm comes to people from psychological research programs.
Further, this experiment can easily be classed with the classic "press the button to shock someone" experiments where nobody was actually shocked.
However, to make the assumption without doubting the assumption is very dangerous.
To whom? A robot that was built WITH AN OFF SWITCH for the explicit purpose of turning it off? My God, the HUMANITY, a toy manufacturer putting an OFF switch on a person they enslaved and compacted into a 10" tall robot toy. Here, I'll complete the Godwin you started -- that toy company must have HITLER as the CEO.
I don't think anyone hesitated to turn off the robot thinking it was just a simple machine.
You don't know what they thought. They may have delayed simply because they wanted to hear what it was saying. They may have delayed to see what it would say next. Neither has anything to do with not thinking it was a complicated machine. (At $10,000 each, it better not be a simple machine.)
FFS we're people whose lifestyles revolve around computers and powercycling them.
Ahh, we found the anti-social, empathy-free Windows user. The only systems I have to powercycle on a regular basis are the ones running Windows. I have Linux system that have run for almost two years without a reboot, much less a forced power cycle.
There are of course, people who have zero empathy. And these people wouldn't have a problem switching it off.
It is important not to fall into the "some people are A and will do B" means "people who do B are A" logical trap. I would absolutely have no problem switching this toy off, but that doesn't mean I have zero empathy. It means that I know the difference between a living thing and a mechanical toy.
It's because any person on the normal spectrum is going to pause to reflect at least a short time if something is begging not to kill it.
The amount of time it takes to reflect on the potential living status of such a toy is very close to zero. In fact, it is less than the time it takes for a normal person to move his hand to the off switch.
Now, the novelty of a clearly non-living toy "begging" for its life may slow down the final result, and this study clearly shows that. They make some noise about how many of the test subjects delayed shutting it off (while 13 didn't do it at all). Of course people will delay in such a situation. I would delay just to see how far the programmer had thought about what to say, or if he'd programmed an answer to a demand for something in return for not turning it off. E.g., "what will you give me not to turn you off?" But the final result would be the same for me: it is clearly not a living thing, the novelty of it begging for its life wears out when it starts to repeat itself, and turning it off is beneficial to the planet (less energy wasted).
We wouldn't even be here if we had no empathy at all because we'd kill others over nothing and enjoy it.
And we wouldn't even be here if we were unable to override an irrational feeling of empathy. The ability to determine when empathy is beneficial and when it is needless is the result of evolutionary adaptation.
I like it very much how modern day Christians take their notion of what is murder or not from Aristotle
I like it very much when apparent atheistts try to speak for all Christians. In other words, you're making it up.
which clearly states the soul enters the body when the person first breathes
You're good at taking things out of context. Remember that the context of that verse is the creation of the first human being out of clay. Prior to life being breathed into it, the clay was not human. Clay has no soul, and thus the soul could ONLY enter it when it became human.
Every baby since that time has been different. A description of how the first human was created is not a description of how every other human has been created. The fact that the material was clay before the first human became so does not mean that every baby since then is clay until it is born.
and that abortion is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine to be paid to the would be father.
You stopped at the first verse of that group. The second clearly says "a life for a life". If taking the "fruit of the woman" followed by "mischief" requires a "life for a life", then clearly the "fruit of the woman" is a "life." Otherwise it would say "a life for a bit of mischief and a blob of clay."
Being a pagan myself, I heartily approve of taking a pagan Philosopher's opinions more seriously than whatever is in the Biblical myths.
You know, "philosophy" covers a wide range of thought, and the fact that both the "bible myth" and a pagan philosopher say an unborn child is a life isn't earth shattering news. Sometimes people of vastly different belief systems and backgrounds come to the same truths despite the different journey. You know, maybe some things are just that obvious.
Be as it may, a paganized Christianity is better than a non-paganized one
I think you meant to say that one of your imagined versions of Christianity is better than another one of your imagined versions. I agree.
even though in this case I myself agree with the Bible!
You agree with the misinterpretation you've created. Not earth shattering news, either. Your bias has you creating the misinterpretation and ignoring the context, and your bias naturally has you agreeing with what you created.
Yes, of course, MILES per GALLON is the inverse of GALLONS per MILE. You pass high school algebra.
Where you fail is in thinking that tone way of reporting the number is right and the other is wrong.
Nobody except race car drivers drives this way.
You are quite wrong. Seriously. I know I have a 15 gallon tank. I have a trip odometer. I routinely monitor the odometer to track when I really need to fill up, and I cross check the pump input against that odometer to see what the MPG I'm getting is. I don't care how many "gallons per mile" I'm using, I want to know how many more miles I have before I need to stop for gas.
You can't even average MPG easily.
Don't be silly. It is just as easy to divide how many miles you drove since the last fillup by the number of gallons it took to fill up as to divide the gallons by the miles. That's how you calculate the average MPG (or GPM if you so desire).
If you drive a 20 MPG vehicle and your spouse drives a 40 MPG vehicle,
Averaging those two numbers is a meaningless exercise.
Roll back fuel standards, - what it could mean?... I mean, - could it be even worse standards than we had all these years,
If you bothered to read the summary, which is a verbatim copy of the first part of the NPR story, you'd learn that "roll back the fuel standards" actually doesn't mean rolling them back, it means freezing them at a level better than today's -- two years in the future, actually.
So no, it will not mean "even worse standards than we had all these years", and it is ridiculous hyperbole to say that kind of nonsense. It's a pathetic attempt at fear mongering and politicizing the issue.
Putin must be laughing his head off after convincing 304 American electoral delegates to put a degenerate in power.
No, he's laughing his head off hearing all the useful idiots who keep saying stuff like this. It feeds his ego and makes him feel good when people ascribe more power to him than he really has. It's like the best practical joke is the joke that never happened, but everyone keeps congratulating the joker on what a great joke it was.
If you want to find a true Putin supporter, look in the mirror.
Soon the US could be building gas guzzlers nobody outside the US wants to buy...
Yeah, because freezing the regulations at a level set for two years in the future is going to allow car makers to return to building gas guzzlers.
My god, will the hyperbole never end?
This is typical left-whine: improving the standards LESS than what the left wants is "rolling back"; increasing taxes LESS than what the left wants is "massive tax cuts" that "take money from the government".
Folks, it's still a better standard than before (and it's still a tax increase), it's just not as much as you want.
nobody inside the US will want to buy them either
If nobody will buy them, the the car makers won't build them. If everyone wanted zero emission vehicles, that would be all that the car makers build. Clearly the market is not as limited as you pretend.
I had been seeing this fancy script "pzev" on the back of Subarus for a while, trying to figure out if it is a model name or what. I was in the dealership getting maintenance one day and saw a flyer: "partial zero emission vehicle". I understand how you can claim something is "zero emission" (it doesn't emit even if building it or creating electricity for it does), or non-zero emissions (it does), but "partial zero"? "Partial zero" is like "a little pregnant". It emits or it doesn't. But it's marketing hype anyway.
The fact that you see no learning opportunities being lost in isolating people born into certain birthright from the overwhelming majority of population
I have no idea what you are saying here, because I said nothing of the sort. I spoke of learning abilities, not "birthright". The rest of your nonsense is ignored.
Well, d'oh. This is a discussion about school vouchers. I think it is safe to assume that we're talking about school vouchers.
Unless school B charges an extra fee on top of the voucher.
If school B charges an extra fee they would be no different than ANY of the existing private schools. The voucher system did not create any additional segregation or differentiation. Read all the words in what you replied to. Oh, wait, you didn't even realize it was about a hypothetical voucher system. I'm guessing you didn't read ANY of the words, you just reacted.
Or school B is hard to reach via cheap transport.
Again, not anew thing.
Or school B can arbitrarily reject students for no good reason.
Not a function of the voucher system.
And so on....
Yes, there are already lots of ways that rich people can put their children in a different place than poor people's kids. The voucher system did not claim to solve every such issue. The argument against the system that you are now continuing is that we should not create ADDITIONAL means of disparity. When you ignore adjectives you waste everyone's time.
Company scrip didn't take the place of minimum wage, it added to it. You still have the supply issues of any town, the only distinction is that a company town provides additional benefits for employees in the form of greater access to goods due to the cost savings of scrip for applicable goods.
Shill or troll, hard to figure out what you are.
Of course scrip didn't take the place of "minimum wage" -- there was no minimum wage. Scrip took the place of ALL wages. All you got was scrip.
Scrip didn't give you greater access to goods, it limited your access to what the company store wanted to sell. It didn't create "cost savings" for the employees, because the price of goods was controlled solely by the company, and they didn't sell at a discount. If you liked Kellogs's Sugar Pops for breakfast and the company store sold only Wheaties, you bought Wheaties because you couldn't drive to the next town over to buy what you wanted.
Applying the company town model to something like Google for example might mean people making $500,000+/year now might be reduced to $80,000/year+scrip,
No, it would mean employees would be paid entirely in scrip, which could only be used to pay rent for a company apartment, buy food from a company store. You could scrimp and save for the future, but you couldn't use whatever you saved if you left the company -- it's useless outside the company town.
but if scrip covers housing+food+utilities in full it's still a net win for them
Unless they wanted something that the company didn't sell, or to save for a future that the company didn't provide. Someone making half a mil a year and able to live where they want could save a lot of money and retire early. Someone getting paid in scrip that went for food and clothing and shelter has no future. If you leave the company you leave with zero assets. Oh, maybe you have 10,000,000 scrip "dollars", but they're no good anywhere outside your ex-employer's stores, and you don't have a badge to access those stores anymore.
Only a shill or a troll would argue that company towns were good for the employees. Or an ignoramus.
The same emergency services that force volunteers to take mandatory certificate classes to do things like firefighting.
Nope. Running a radio gateway is nothing like firefighting. It requires a ham license, but if you think the FCC is going to force people to buy fully redundant hardware to run a radio gateway you're nuttier than a loon. If you think that buying fully redundant PC hardware is going to solve the problem, then sit back and watch as both systems choose to update at the same time, installing the same broken patch that makes the systems crash. Redundancy bought you nothing.
Emergency comms are no different. Certification after certification. Background checks, including financial.
Excuse my French, but you are full of shit. There are no background checks of any kind, much less financial, and no certification other than a basic amateur radio license, required to operate the gateways I am talking about.
Now, maybe you think the problem I was talking about is internal to a government communications facility which is paid for by tax dollars and operated by "certificated" people, but I thought I was pretty clear in the description that it was nothing of the sort.
And yes, there are problems getting smart people to become volunteer responders.
It's not "volunteer responders". It's building a communications infrastructure using completely volunteer resources. Those resources can be 1000 miles away from the emergency and the operator may not know it is going on. He's not a "responder".
Strange thing is thje people forcing this on volunteers have no idea why.
Your comment is so devoid of context as to be useless. What is the "this" you think you are referring to? Use of Windows and the demand to keep them updating automatically? Well, they have an idea why they do that, they're just wrongheaded about it and ignoring the consequences of their decisions. Most of them don't care that it is so ridiculously stupid to require a production computing system, ANY production system, to update automatically. Their only concern is that YOUR system might get hacked into and something bad happen to YOUR system, and they don't want you to have the right to judge the risks and take your own protective measures outside the "one size fits all" Microsoft update cycle.
So yeah, the orders will come down that you have to have a computer running Windows as a service if the powers that be decide to make it so.
Yep, that's what I was talking about when I said people would get roped into it.
Judge: "Let me make sure I understand this. Your company decided that the emergency services comms gateway would shut down to complete updates at 2:17am on the 10th ?"
MS Lawyer: "No, your honor. We sold an operating system for a computer. We had no knowledge of what that computer was being used for. It was the decision of the purchaser to run a critical system using that operating system."
Judge: "Did they not think to ask? Why not use a - what do they call it?"
Prosecutor: "A dialogue box, your honour. It presents a question and the ability to answer 'no' or 'yes'."
MS Lawyer: "We did present a dialog box, your honor. The user was not present at the remotely installed system to say 'not now', but he was given the opportunity."
Judge: "Tell that to the dead firefighters and their families.
MS Lawyer: "I'm sorry you so completely misunderstand the problem".
If you think that such a court case would ever see a judge, you're a looney.
Learn to deal with "lesser humans" early actually.
Having money taken from your classroom that could have bought supplies for advanced study to be used in a classroom of lesser able students so they get extra help does not teach students in the first classroom how to deal with "lesser humans early", because they aren't dealing with lesser humans at all. They're missing out on learning opportunities for no obvious reason.
A very important skill considering that if you're destined for the upper classes, you should learn empathy for the lower classes.
Forced education camps would solve that. Everybody gets gruel to eat and does manual labor 12 hours a day, with lessons provided only after dark by candlelight using old copies of Mein Kampf and The Communist Manifesto for reading material. That will teach them burgs to respect and have empathy for the proles, sure, you betcha!
Creating an additional incentive to further segregate society along lines of income and wealth is not a good plan.
Everyone gets the same voucher, rich and poor alike. This does not create any additional incentive for segregation. If a rich person chooses to send their child to school B because they think it is better, then the poor person can make the same choice because the vouchers are worth the same.
Slashdot Mirror
That's because George II was in charge when the sub-prime mortgage crisis happened.
Which was created by the CRA that was enacted under, umm, let's see, who was that? And exacerbated by Frank when he denied there was any problem at all, when Bush was trying to get better regulation put in place. It may have come to a crisis during Bush, but it began a long time before that. It needed to reach critical mass, just like people tell us there is a tipping point in global climate change. Tomorrow's crisis will come from CO2 emitted a decade ago. The banking crisis was the result of bad policy forced on the banks a long time before -- and which included pressure from a lot of community activist groups, one of which BO played a large part in promoting long before he entered the Senate.
Stop pretending there is any left in US politics,
Except for the left, you're right.
So, on-topic for a minute. Of course the FCC wasn't hacked. The comment system that was designed to make it easy for people to make comments without a horrendous authentication system getting in the way allowed people to make comments without a horrendous authentication system getting in the way. Most proceedings don't attract hoards of people who feel no compulsion to be honest about their identities; this one did. Go figure how that would turn out.
I tried using it a couple of months ago and I couldn't remember my password. Part of the "prove to us you own the account" process Microsoft has is "what is the last password you remember?" Well, deary, since there's only ever been one password on the account. if I could remember the last one I wouldn't have to be trying to reset it, now would I?
Put another way 16us=0.0016ms
Good thing we all went metric because dividing by 1000 is easy.
16 microseconds is 0.016 milliseconds.
don't assume it will be enabled by default for all users.
If it is "enabled by default" for some users, it is enabled by default for all users. That's what "enabled by default" means.
I'd mostly agree with that. A page may contain 20 thumbnail images from nerdporn.com, on a page loaded from nerporn.com. It would be silly for the browser to load that one page by asking the OS to look up nerdporn.com 21 times in one second.
Twenty times. The first lookup will be for nerporn.com. But then, that's why DNS servers CACHE answers. And, it fact, I believe that Windows and many flavors of Linux cache it on-system to begin with (I think it is "nsd".)
It is also considerably different for Firefox to do its own caching than for it to IGNORE the system-configured DNS server altogether.
Settings should be available for the 0.1% who will use them.
The problem is that "settings" are only changeable after you run Firefox.
This shows up on every installation of Firefox, where the first thing it does is run back to home base to report the new installation. AFTER your installation is reported, you can change the home screen. And, IIRC, you get to have all the crap on the "blank page" active and call home before you can configure your blank page to be almost blank. You can't quite get all the way there -- the settings widget is always there to let you turn on useless crap.
That said, I'm not convinced that this particular choice is best for the 99% who don't know what we're talking about.
It isn't. People will be calling their ISP tech support wondering why Firefox can/cannot locate a page that IE cannot/can find, and someone will have to recognize that Firefox is ignoring the ISP-configured DNS server (which may have local names installed) in preference to Cloudflare.
"We know better how to configure your computer than you do" is not a good marketing tactic.
You think the incumbents don't have standing contracts with the contractors that do the work?
I didn't say that.
Do you think they don't have "on call" technicians?
I didn't say that, either.
Do you think they have no outage emergency plans? Because they do.
I didn't say they don't. Sheesh, three for three. What's next?
Now, what you don't seem to understand is that those "emergency outage" protocols COST MONEY and TAKE TIME. I spoke about money and time.
And some like COX even has their OWN installers and techs,
"They may have. Probably do. They have daily operations staff. Fixing a broken main feed is not an "installer and tech" job.
Do you have something to argue with me about something I actually said?
Sounds like they want clarification on how, exactly, the FCC fucked up so they can use that against them in the future.
Sounds to me like they want to get a ruling to prevent the next liberal "rule by fiat" President from simply reinstating the same rules by fiat. If the FCC can point to a SCOTUS decision that said they shouldn't have created rules outside their scope of authority when President Next issues his Executive Order putting them back, then we can avoid the executive branch politicization of this legislative branch football.
What if the dingaling for New Guy Cable causes an outage for my whole neighborhood
How about holding the new Guy responsible to repair or pay for repairing the damage when they do that ?
So New Guy Cable installer causes an outage. This forces Incumbent to spend money fixing it, maybe lost revenue when pay-per-view users cannot view what they want to pay for. Then Incumbent has to not only prove that New Cable installer moved their stuff, but that he broke it when he did. It goes to court, it takes years to resolve. In the meantime, New Cable goes bankrupt because they didn't get enough subs and they have to pay a bunch of lawyers to defend them.
You WANT to create a system where the only people who win are the lawyers, and everyone else loses?
By the way, I believe if the incumbents are THAT concerned, they have the opportunity to do the work themselves, if they don't delay
It could be extremely costly for an incumbent to have to hire a contractor on short notice, and a lot of such infrastructure work is done by contractors.
Let's put it in a standard analogy form. Would you be happy if someone wanted to park in the space your car is located and he could just move your car out of the way on his own? Or closer to the actual circumstances -- you parked too close to the line in your space, and instead of waiting for you to move your car someone else could hire a tow truck to move you?
No. The Hebrew word we translate as "soul" and "spirit" are "nephesh" for soul, and "ruash" and "neshamah" for spirit, the three of which mean "breathe".
Yes, the source of the first spirit (soul) was from a breath. That does not mean that the source of every other soul is from a breath taken by the baby. The word acknowledges where the first one came from, not requires that every following one come the same way.
No, I didn't. Those verses refer to the death of the would-be mother and/or of the would-be father.
Oh, cool. then murder is just "mischief" according to the Bible. Good to know.
In fact, even American evangelicals only began believing this during the 1970's.
Uhhh, no. I'm old enough to know better. The fact that it became a widely-discussed issue on the 70's doesn't mean that it wasn't believed to be killing before that. It took having laws legitimizing that killing to get to Rowe vs. Wade in 1973.
Are you sure it is a robot? Are sure there isn't someone behind it whose life will end if you unplug?
Yes, and Yes. You can find this device for sale, which would be illegal were it a person. The experiment was conducted by a researcher at a German university, which will have an oversite process to ensure that no harm comes to people from psychological research programs.
Further, this experiment can easily be classed with the classic "press the button to shock someone" experiments where nobody was actually shocked.
However, to make the assumption without doubting the assumption is very dangerous.
To whom? A robot that was built WITH AN OFF SWITCH for the explicit purpose of turning it off? My God, the HUMANITY, a toy manufacturer putting an OFF switch on a person they enslaved and compacted into a 10" tall robot toy. Here, I'll complete the Godwin you started -- that toy company must have HITLER as the CEO.
I don't think anyone hesitated to turn off the robot thinking it was just a simple machine.
You don't know what they thought. They may have delayed simply because they wanted to hear what it was saying. They may have delayed to see what it would say next. Neither has anything to do with not thinking it was a complicated machine. (At $10,000 each, it better not be a simple machine.)
FFS we're people whose lifestyles revolve around computers and powercycling them.
Ahh, we found the anti-social, empathy-free Windows user. The only systems I have to powercycle on a regular basis are the ones running Windows. I have Linux system that have run for almost two years without a reboot, much less a forced power cycle.
There are of course, people who have zero empathy. And these people wouldn't have a problem switching it off.
It is important not to fall into the "some people are A and will do B" means "people who do B are A" logical trap. I would absolutely have no problem switching this toy off, but that doesn't mean I have zero empathy. It means that I know the difference between a living thing and a mechanical toy.
It's because any person on the normal spectrum is going to pause to reflect at least a short time if something is begging not to kill it.
The amount of time it takes to reflect on the potential living status of such a toy is very close to zero. In fact, it is less than the time it takes for a normal person to move his hand to the off switch.
Now, the novelty of a clearly non-living toy "begging" for its life may slow down the final result, and this study clearly shows that. They make some noise about how many of the test subjects delayed shutting it off (while 13 didn't do it at all). Of course people will delay in such a situation. I would delay just to see how far the programmer had thought about what to say, or if he'd programmed an answer to a demand for something in return for not turning it off. E.g., "what will you give me not to turn you off?" But the final result would be the same for me: it is clearly not a living thing, the novelty of it begging for its life wears out when it starts to repeat itself, and turning it off is beneficial to the planet (less energy wasted).
We wouldn't even be here if we had no empathy at all because we'd kill others over nothing and enjoy it.
And we wouldn't even be here if we were unable to override an irrational feeling of empathy. The ability to determine when empathy is beneficial and when it is needless is the result of evolutionary adaptation.
I like it very much how modern day Christians take their notion of what is murder or not from Aristotle
I like it very much when apparent atheistts try to speak for all Christians. In other words, you're making it up.
which clearly states the soul enters the body when the person first breathes
You're good at taking things out of context. Remember that the context of that verse is the creation of the first human being out of clay. Prior to life being breathed into it, the clay was not human. Clay has no soul, and thus the soul could ONLY enter it when it became human.
Every baby since that time has been different. A description of how the first human was created is not a description of how every other human has been created. The fact that the material was clay before the first human became so does not mean that every baby since then is clay until it is born.
and that abortion is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine to be paid to the would be father.
You stopped at the first verse of that group. The second clearly says "a life for a life". If taking the "fruit of the woman" followed by "mischief" requires a "life for a life", then clearly the "fruit of the woman" is a "life." Otherwise it would say "a life for a bit of mischief and a blob of clay."
Being a pagan myself, I heartily approve of taking a pagan Philosopher's opinions more seriously than whatever is in the Biblical myths.
You know, "philosophy" covers a wide range of thought, and the fact that both the "bible myth" and a pagan philosopher say an unborn child is a life isn't earth shattering news. Sometimes people of vastly different belief systems and backgrounds come to the same truths despite the different journey. You know, maybe some things are just that obvious.
Be as it may, a paganized Christianity is better than a non-paganized one
I think you meant to say that one of your imagined versions of Christianity is better than another one of your imagined versions. I agree.
even though in this case I myself agree with the Bible!
You agree with the misinterpretation you've created. Not earth shattering news, either. Your bias has you creating the misinterpretation and ignoring the context, and your bias naturally has you agreeing with what you created.
But MPG is the inverse of fuel efficiency.
Yes, of course, MILES per GALLON is the inverse of GALLONS per MILE. You pass high school algebra.
Where you fail is in thinking that tone way of reporting the number is right and the other is wrong.
Nobody except race car drivers drives this way.
You are quite wrong. Seriously. I know I have a 15 gallon tank. I have a trip odometer. I routinely monitor the odometer to track when I really need to fill up, and I cross check the pump input against that odometer to see what the MPG I'm getting is. I don't care how many "gallons per mile" I'm using, I want to know how many more miles I have before I need to stop for gas.
You can't even average MPG easily.
Don't be silly. It is just as easy to divide how many miles you drove since the last fillup by the number of gallons it took to fill up as to divide the gallons by the miles. That's how you calculate the average MPG (or GPM if you so desire).
If you drive a 20 MPG vehicle and your spouse drives a 40 MPG vehicle,
Averaging those two numbers is a meaningless exercise.
Roll back fuel standards, - what it could mean? ... I mean, - could it be even worse standards than we had all these years,
If you bothered to read the summary, which is a verbatim copy of the first part of the NPR story, you'd learn that "roll back the fuel standards" actually doesn't mean rolling them back, it means freezing them at a level better than today's -- two years in the future, actually.
So no, it will not mean "even worse standards than we had all these years", and it is ridiculous hyperbole to say that kind of nonsense. It's a pathetic attempt at fear mongering and politicizing the issue.
Putin must be laughing his head off after convincing 304 American electoral delegates to put a degenerate in power.
No, he's laughing his head off hearing all the useful idiots who keep saying stuff like this. It feeds his ego and makes him feel good when people ascribe more power to him than he really has. It's like the best practical joke is the joke that never happened, but everyone keeps congratulating the joker on what a great joke it was.
If you want to find a true Putin supporter, look in the mirror.
Soon the US could be building gas guzzlers nobody outside the US wants to buy...
Yeah, because freezing the regulations at a level set for two years in the future is going to allow car makers to return to building gas guzzlers.
My god, will the hyperbole never end?
This is typical left-whine: improving the standards LESS than what the left wants is "rolling back"; increasing taxes LESS than what the left wants is "massive tax cuts" that "take money from the government".
Folks, it's still a better standard than before (and it's still a tax increase), it's just not as much as you want.
nobody inside the US will want to buy them either
If nobody will buy them, the the car makers won't build them. If everyone wanted zero emission vehicles, that would be all that the car makers build. Clearly the market is not as limited as you pretend.
I had been seeing this fancy script "pzev" on the back of Subarus for a while, trying to figure out if it is a model name or what. I was in the dealership getting maintenance one day and saw a flyer: "partial zero emission vehicle". I understand how you can claim something is "zero emission" (it doesn't emit even if building it or creating electricity for it does), or non-zero emissions (it does), but "partial zero"? "Partial zero" is like "a little pregnant". It emits or it doesn't. But it's marketing hype anyway.
The fact that you see no learning opportunities being lost in isolating people born into certain birthright from the overwhelming majority of population
I have no idea what you are saying here, because I said nothing of the sort. I spoke of learning abilities, not "birthright". The rest of your nonsense is ignored.
First, that assumes school vouchers.
Well, d'oh. This is a discussion about school vouchers. I think it is safe to assume that we're talking about school vouchers.
Unless school B charges an extra fee on top of the voucher.
If school B charges an extra fee they would be no different than ANY of the existing private schools. The voucher system did not create any additional segregation or differentiation. Read all the words in what you replied to. Oh, wait, you didn't even realize it was about a hypothetical voucher system. I'm guessing you didn't read ANY of the words, you just reacted.
Or school B is hard to reach via cheap transport.
Again, not anew thing.
Or school B can arbitrarily reject students for no good reason.
Not a function of the voucher system.
And so on....
Yes, there are already lots of ways that rich people can put their children in a different place than poor people's kids. The voucher system did not claim to solve every such issue. The argument against the system that you are now continuing is that we should not create ADDITIONAL means of disparity. When you ignore adjectives you waste everyone's time.
Company scrip didn't take the place of minimum wage, it added to it. You still have the supply issues of any town, the only distinction is that a company town provides additional benefits for employees in the form of greater access to goods due to the cost savings of scrip for applicable goods.
Shill or troll, hard to figure out what you are.
Of course scrip didn't take the place of "minimum wage" -- there was no minimum wage. Scrip took the place of ALL wages. All you got was scrip.
Scrip didn't give you greater access to goods, it limited your access to what the company store wanted to sell. It didn't create "cost savings" for the employees, because the price of goods was controlled solely by the company, and they didn't sell at a discount. If you liked Kellogs's Sugar Pops for breakfast and the company store sold only Wheaties, you bought Wheaties because you couldn't drive to the next town over to buy what you wanted.
Applying the company town model to something like Google for example might mean people making $500,000+/year now might be reduced to $80,000/year+scrip,
No, it would mean employees would be paid entirely in scrip, which could only be used to pay rent for a company apartment, buy food from a company store. You could scrimp and save for the future, but you couldn't use whatever you saved if you left the company -- it's useless outside the company town.
but if scrip covers housing+food+utilities in full it's still a net win for them
Unless they wanted something that the company didn't sell, or to save for a future that the company didn't provide. Someone making half a mil a year and able to live where they want could save a lot of money and retire early. Someone getting paid in scrip that went for food and clothing and shelter has no future. If you leave the company you leave with zero assets. Oh, maybe you have 10,000,000 scrip "dollars", but they're no good anywhere outside your ex-employer's stores, and you don't have a badge to access those stores anymore.
Only a shill or a troll would argue that company towns were good for the employees. Or an ignoramus.
The same emergency services that force volunteers to take mandatory certificate classes to do things like firefighting.
Nope. Running a radio gateway is nothing like firefighting. It requires a ham license, but if you think the FCC is going to force people to buy fully redundant hardware to run a radio gateway you're nuttier than a loon. If you think that buying fully redundant PC hardware is going to solve the problem, then sit back and watch as both systems choose to update at the same time, installing the same broken patch that makes the systems crash. Redundancy bought you nothing.
Emergency comms are no different. Certification after certification. Background checks, including financial.
Excuse my French, but you are full of shit. There are no background checks of any kind, much less financial, and no certification other than a basic amateur radio license, required to operate the gateways I am talking about.
Now, maybe you think the problem I was talking about is internal to a government communications facility which is paid for by tax dollars and operated by "certificated" people, but I thought I was pretty clear in the description that it was nothing of the sort.
And yes, there are problems getting smart people to become volunteer responders.
It's not "volunteer responders". It's building a communications infrastructure using completely volunteer resources. Those resources can be 1000 miles away from the emergency and the operator may not know it is going on. He's not a "responder".
Strange thing is thje people forcing this on volunteers have no idea why.
Your comment is so devoid of context as to be useless. What is the "this" you think you are referring to? Use of Windows and the demand to keep them updating automatically? Well, they have an idea why they do that, they're just wrongheaded about it and ignoring the consequences of their decisions. Most of them don't care that it is so ridiculously stupid to require a production computing system, ANY production system, to update automatically. Their only concern is that YOUR system might get hacked into and something bad happen to YOUR system, and they don't want you to have the right to judge the risks and take your own protective measures outside the "one size fits all" Microsoft update cycle.
So yeah, the orders will come down that you have to have a computer running Windows as a service if the powers that be decide to make it so.
Yep, that's what I was talking about when I said people would get roped into it.
Judge: "Let me make sure I understand this. Your company decided that the emergency services comms gateway would shut down to complete updates at 2:17am on the 10th ?"
MS Lawyer: "No, your honor. We sold an operating system for a computer. We had no knowledge of what that computer was being used for. It was the decision of the purchaser to run a critical system using that operating system."
Judge: "Did they not think to ask? Why not use a - what do they call it?"
Prosecutor: "A dialogue box, your honour. It presents a question and the ability to answer 'no' or 'yes'."
MS Lawyer: "We did present a dialog box, your honor. The user was not present at the remotely installed system to say 'not now', but he was given the opportunity."
Judge: "Tell that to the dead firefighters and their families.
MS Lawyer: "I'm sorry you so completely misunderstand the problem".
If you think that such a court case would ever see a judge, you're a looney.
Learn to deal with "lesser humans" early actually.
Having money taken from your classroom that could have bought supplies for advanced study to be used in a classroom of lesser able students so they get extra help does not teach students in the first classroom how to deal with "lesser humans early", because they aren't dealing with lesser humans at all. They're missing out on learning opportunities for no obvious reason.
A very important skill considering that if you're destined for the upper classes, you should learn empathy for the lower classes.
Forced education camps would solve that. Everybody gets gruel to eat and does manual labor 12 hours a day, with lessons provided only after dark by candlelight using old copies of Mein Kampf and The Communist Manifesto for reading material. That will teach them burgs to respect and have empathy for the proles, sure, you betcha!
Creating an additional incentive to further segregate society along lines of income and wealth is not a good plan.
Everyone gets the same voucher, rich and poor alike. This does not create any additional incentive for segregation. If a rich person chooses to send their child to school B because they think it is better, then the poor person can make the same choice because the vouchers are worth the same.