> As long as enough people never understand all the taxes paid by people who can least afford it, the system will always be grossly unfair.
That makes no sense. Maybe your idea of what "fair tax" is isn't what advocates of the actual "Fair Tax" bill promote, or maybe you just don't realize that sales tax disproportionately increases costs of living on people whose taxable spending takes up the majority of their income (i.e. poor people)
> So when someone is seeking asylum they can just swim across a river and jump a fence anywhere along the border or are there more appropriate buildings made for this located at specific points of entry?
While that's not at all what's actually happening (people are being arrested at the boarder control facilities) it is in fact irrelevant to international law how an asylum seeker enters a country they hope to seek refuge in. If it is necessary to escape danger by swimming across a river or jumping a fence because there might be someone waiting for you just outside the official boarder crossing, that does not in any way invalidate your right to seek asylum.
But again, that's not what's happening... people are being arrested at the boarder control facilities, not in the middle of nowhere. =Smidge=
> It didn't take long for someone to throw that card. You know they have no valid argument now.
Sometimes it actually is racist, though. When you combine the rhetoric with the policies that crack down on both illegal and legal immigration (but only for very specific demographics) a very clear pattern emerges.
> If the "migrants" show up at a proper crossing point and request asylum there this problem is eliminated.
They are literally being arrested before they get that far. You show up at the boarder control checkpoint, ask for asylum and if you don't have the right paperwork you get arrested for entering the country illegally, because just walking onto the building property is technically entering the country.
Do you really think they're picking these people up in the middle of a field as they crawl under a fence somewhere? =Smidge=
> ItÃ(TM)s a political stunt. Schumer himself admitted that the Democrats are blocking a legislative fix in order to Ãoekeep the focus on TrumpÃ
The reason being it's entirely within Trump's power to end the practice right now, without any legislation. Any attempt to create legislation to fix this is merely a political stunt by the GOP to make it look like they're trying, when no effort should be needed in the first place.
The ball is 100% in Tump's court, so yes let's keep the focus on him and why he's not doing what is entirely within his power to do. =Smidge=
Your argument seems to be based on the premise that, since nobody else will be executing code on your hardware, you don't need the extra security.
The problem is malware doesn't always run with your permission, or knowledge.
So your analogy would really be more like; Do you have a password on your system? It would be so much faster to access your server if you didn't have to type in a password every time, and you're the only one with access to it anyway, right? Right? =Smidge=
Seeking asylum is not against the law. And yet, if you come to the US-Mexico boarder seeking asylum, you will be arrested and your children, if any, will be confiscated.
It's un-American, it's illegal, it's racist, and it's completely unnecessary. It's throwing gasoline on what is already a dumpster fire of a humanitarian crisis. =Smidge=
EV Batteries cost just around $200/kWh right now, so a 30kWh pack costs about $6000. $6000 will buy you approximately 2000 gallons of gasoline (local fuel prices are just a hair under $3/gal right now, plus it makes the math easier). The average fuel economy for vehicles in the US is about 25 mpg. That works out to 50,000 miles of driving.
Meanwhile the same 50,000 miles of driving, at an average of 3.5 mi/kWh and $0.18 per kWh (again, local costs) works out to about $2,650.
So, with no other considerations at all, you're saving about $3,350 per 50K miles. =Smidge=
If they didn't want to drive the price of artificial diamonds down, they wouldn't be selling them for one fifth the going price.
Cheaper maybe, to elbow themselves into the market... but a fifth? They're clearly trying to undermine the man-made gem diamond market. I wonder if $800/ct even covers the cost of production. =Smidge=
So if you're not literally dying from starvation, you're not actually starving and it doesn't count?
First of all, fuck you for that attitude.
Second, we're lucky enough to have social programs, both taxpayer funded and privately operated, that people can generally avoid literally wasting away to death... but that does not mean hunger isn't a problem. The mere fact that such programs are necessary means that hunger is a problem. =Smidge=
They are real diamonds... distinguishable only from "natural" diamonds in that they are often more perfect in crystal purity and structure than mined ones.
DeBeers shit themselves over a decade ago when Gemesis (Now known as Pure Grown Diamonds) started producing multi-carat cultured diamonds for jewelry use. I suppose they've been unable to stop the technology through brute force and intimidation, so the next tactic is to try and undermine the competition by driving the prices down. Can't have your billions of dollars worth of hoarded diamonds end up worthless thanks to alternatives, can you? =Smidge=
Because they know poor people are _fat_ on average.
Citation needed.
Turns out something like hunger is a complex subject, and isn't as clear cut. That's why several tiers of "food security" exist; to better understand the problem. If you can only afford things from the dollar menu at McD's three meals a day, that's not good food security. You might not be starving but your diet is garbage, and your health and quality of life will likely suffer for it.
If you are making a choice between paying your utility bills or going grocery shopping, you're in bad shape... and by that definition, that's about 6 million people in the US. =Smidge=
"My" quantum mechanics? As if I came up with it myself...
There is absolutely no doubt that quantum mechanics is as real and correct as any other aspect of science. It's perhaps one of the best fields there is in terms of predictive power, despite how intangible and counter-intuitive it is. The fact that we're even able to have this interaction is testament to that!
You seem to be the one trying to shoehorn decades of well established and applied quantum physics into a classical worldview. That's not going to work. Classical physics has been demonstrated to be fundamentally wrong for at least a century now, thanks to Relativity and QM (but we keep it around only because it's "good enough" for everyday use.)
If you think you have a better theory, that explains everything QM does and more, and can produce the same practical results, you have multiple Nobel prizes and immortality in the annals of human history waiting for you. =Smidge=
> Only Tesla knows for sure, but experts are guessing that Tesla will make a 25% margin on the Model 3.
Keyword: "Will"
Maybe I didn't phrase it properly, but my point was it would have been impossible for them to start out with a low cost vehicle like the Model 3. They didn't have any ability to leverage economies of scale, and they didn't have a brand reputation to support them. As we both point out, the plan was always to aim high. =Smidge=
$35,000 for the base model. There's no lie there, but there's no fancy options either.
I mean if you're going to play that game, the Nissan Leaf actually has an MSRP of $41,057 (according to their website, highest trim level and all available options...) =Smidge=
The Model 3 has an MSRP of $35K. That's significantly more on the "affordable" end of the spectrum and is on par with other EVs available now.
The Model S and Model X are high cost to try and actually make money off of them. Pretty much the only reason Tesla has lasted this long, and gotten this far, is by aiming high and building brand reputation. There's just no margin in $35K vehicles and they'd never sell without the branding to back them up.
It was a good strategy and it's worked out brilliantly for them. Victims of their own success at this point. =Smidge=
There's also Twitch Prime, which links your Amazon Prime account with Twitch streaming service, removes ads, includes one free channel subscription and a few other perks. Not everyone's thing but it's value-add if you watch Twitch streams on a regular basis.
Is it too much to hope that the extra money goes towards paying their workers better?:/ =Smidge=
One would think that this kind of technique could be applied to electricity if it were really that big a risk
According to the paper linked through the article, even a purpose-built device that randomly loads the power supply in the device being snooped might not be totally effective, nor would EMI filters unless they were purpose-made for the rather low frequencies. And I can easily see a variant of the attack bypassing even those by using a carrier frequency lower than the utility's 50/60Hz... you'd just have to be really patient.
The only way I can see to prevent this is a specially made, double conversion UPS or similar storage-backed power supply that is carefully designed and sized to keep the power consumed from the wall completely independent of the power consumed by the device by averaging that power over the span of hours or maybe even days. =Smidge=
Wouldn't help; They are varying the power the machine uses, and unless you have a power supply that can output a variable amount of power while keeping the power it draws from the wall constant (which would be either magical or horrendously inefficient at partial loads) there's no way to "filter" this sort of attack.
Slashdot Mirror
> As long as enough people never understand all the taxes paid by people who can least afford it, the system will always be grossly unfair.
That makes no sense. Maybe your idea of what "fair tax" is isn't what advocates of the actual "Fair Tax" bill promote, or maybe you just don't realize that sales tax disproportionately increases costs of living on people whose taxable spending takes up the majority of their income (i.e. poor people)
=Smidge=
Hopefully never, because the "fair tax" hurts the people who can least afford it the most, and is anything but fair.
=Smidge=
> So when someone is seeking asylum they can just swim across a river and jump a fence anywhere along the border or are there more appropriate buildings made for this located at specific points of entry?
While that's not at all what's actually happening (people are being arrested at the boarder control facilities) it is in fact irrelevant to international law how an asylum seeker enters a country they hope to seek refuge in. If it is necessary to escape danger by swimming across a river or jumping a fence because there might be someone waiting for you just outside the official boarder crossing, that does not in any way invalidate your right to seek asylum.
But again, that's not what's happening... people are being arrested at the boarder control facilities, not in the middle of nowhere.
=Smidge=
> If you come to an official border crossing point, you will all remain together.
Incorrect.
=Smidge=
> That is under debate.
No, it isn't. If you think it is then you're not a real American by any definition that's had in the last century.
> That is provably incorrect. In fact, the entire reason for it is the consent decree Reno v Flores. The rule was codified in 1988
Smell like a bullshit talking point
> It didn't take long for someone to throw that card. You know they have no valid argument now.
Sometimes it actually is racist, though. When you combine the rhetoric with the policies that crack down on both illegal and legal immigration (but only for very specific demographics) a very clear pattern emerges.
> If the "migrants" show up at a proper crossing point and request asylum there this problem is eliminated.
They are literally being arrested before they get that far. You show up at the boarder control checkpoint, ask for asylum and if you don't have the right paperwork you get arrested for entering the country illegally, because just walking onto the building property is technically entering the country.
Do you really think they're picking these people up in the middle of a field as they crawl under a fence somewhere?
=Smidge=
> ItÃ(TM)s a political stunt. Schumer himself admitted that the Democrats are blocking a legislative fix in order to Ãoekeep the focus on TrumpÃ
The reason being it's entirely within Trump's power to end the practice right now, without any legislation. Any attempt to create legislation to fix this is merely a political stunt by the GOP to make it look like they're trying, when no effort should be needed in the first place.
The ball is 100% in Tump's court, so yes let's keep the focus on him and why he's not doing what is entirely within his power to do.
=Smidge=
Your argument seems to be based on the premise that, since nobody else will be executing code on your hardware, you don't need the extra security.
The problem is malware doesn't always run with your permission, or knowledge.
So your analogy would really be more like; Do you have a password on your system? It would be so much faster to access your server if you didn't have to type in a password every time, and you're the only one with access to it anyway, right? Right?
=Smidge=
> They both have broken the Law.
Seeking asylum is not against the law. And yet, if you come to the US-Mexico boarder seeking asylum, you will be arrested and your children, if any, will be confiscated.
And I say "confiscated" because there is a nonzero chance that separation will be permanent.
> No it's not pleasant, no it's not ideal.
It's un-American, it's illegal, it's racist, and it's completely unnecessary. It's throwing gasoline on what is already a dumpster fire of a humanitarian crisis.
=Smidge=
I never said anything about a break-even point, just that you're pending about $3,350 less per 50K miles driven.
=Smidge=
EV Batteries cost just around $200/kWh right now, so a 30kWh pack costs about $6000. $6000 will buy you approximately 2000 gallons of gasoline (local fuel prices are just a hair under $3/gal right now, plus it makes the math easier). The average fuel economy for vehicles in the US is about 25 mpg. That works out to 50,000 miles of driving.
Meanwhile the same 50,000 miles of driving, at an average of 3.5 mi/kWh and $0.18 per kWh (again, local costs) works out to about $2,650.
So, with no other considerations at all, you're saving about $3,350 per 50K miles.
=Smidge=
If they didn't want to drive the price of artificial diamonds down, they wouldn't be selling them for one fifth the going price.
Cheaper maybe, to elbow themselves into the market... but a fifth? They're clearly trying to undermine the man-made gem diamond market. I wonder if $800/ct even covers the cost of production.
=Smidge=
So if you're not literally dying from starvation, you're not actually starving and it doesn't count?
First of all, fuck you for that attitude.
Second, we're lucky enough to have social programs, both taxpayer funded and privately operated, that people can generally avoid literally wasting away to death... but that does not mean hunger isn't a problem. The mere fact that such programs are necessary means that hunger is a problem.
=Smidge=
They are real diamonds... distinguishable only from "natural" diamonds in that they are often more perfect in crystal purity and structure than mined ones.
DeBeers shit themselves over a decade ago when Gemesis (Now known as Pure Grown Diamonds) started producing multi-carat cultured diamonds for jewelry use. I suppose they've been unable to stop the technology through brute force and intimidation, so the next tactic is to try and undermine the competition by driving the prices down. Can't have your billions of dollars worth of hoarded diamonds end up worthless thanks to alternatives, can you?
=Smidge=
Because they know poor people are _fat_ on average.
Citation needed.
Turns out something like hunger is a complex subject, and isn't as clear cut. That's why several tiers of "food security" exist; to better understand the problem. If you can only afford things from the dollar menu at McD's three meals a day, that's not good food security. You might not be starving but your diet is garbage, and your health and quality of life will likely suffer for it.
If you are making a choice between paying your utility bills or going grocery shopping, you're in bad shape... and by that definition, that's about 6 million people in the US.
=Smidge=
Your quantum mechanics
"My" quantum mechanics? As if I came up with it myself...
There is absolutely no doubt that quantum mechanics is as real and correct as any other aspect of science. It's perhaps one of the best fields there is in terms of predictive power, despite how intangible and counter-intuitive it is. The fact that we're even able to have this interaction is testament to that!
You seem to be the one trying to shoehorn decades of well established and applied quantum physics into a classical worldview. That's not going to work. Classical physics has been demonstrated to be fundamentally wrong for at least a century now, thanks to Relativity and QM (but we keep it around only because it's "good enough" for everyday use.)
If you think you have a better theory, that explains everything QM does and more, and can produce the same practical results, you have multiple Nobel prizes and immortality in the annals of human history waiting for you.
=Smidge=
Or, in other words, a new geometry where massive non 3D objects can exist outside your imagination
We call this "quantum mechanics" where particles act like waves (and waves act like particles) and things can have momentum but no mass.
Quarks have mass but no volume. The very concept of "3D objects" vanishes in a puff of mathematics.
=Smidge=
Make it legal to clothesline anyone riding a powered vehicle on the sidewalk.
Problem should sort itself out soon enough.
=Smidge=
> Only Tesla knows for sure, but experts are guessing that Tesla will make a 25% margin on the Model 3.
Keyword: "Will"
Maybe I didn't phrase it properly, but my point was it would have been impossible for them to start out with a low cost vehicle like the Model 3. They didn't have any ability to leverage economies of scale, and they didn't have a brand reputation to support them. As we both point out, the plan was always to aim high.
=Smidge=
$35,000 for the base model. There's no lie there, but there's no fancy options either.
I mean if you're going to play that game, the Nissan Leaf actually has an MSRP of $41,057 (according to their website, highest trim level and all available options...)
=Smidge=
The Model 3 has an MSRP of $35K. That's significantly more on the "affordable" end of the spectrum and is on par with other EVs available now.
The Model S and Model X are high cost to try and actually make money off of them. Pretty much the only reason Tesla has lasted this long, and gotten this far, is by aiming high and building brand reputation. There's just no margin in $35K vehicles and they'd never sell without the branding to back them up.
It was a good strategy and it's worked out brilliantly for them. Victims of their own success at this point.
=Smidge=
> Cells need to be replaced every 3-5 years
Where does this number come from?
=Smidge=
There's also Twitch Prime, which links your Amazon Prime account with Twitch streaming service, removes ads, includes one free channel subscription and a few other perks. Not everyone's thing but it's value-add if you watch Twitch streams on a regular basis.
Is it too much to hope that the extra money goes towards paying their workers better? :/
=Smidge=
Call it "Project 2501"
Now we'll just need a war where the Korean peninsula gets nuked into oblivion and we'll get set.
=Smidge=
One would think that this kind of technique could be applied to electricity if it were really that big a risk
According to the paper linked through the article, even a purpose-built device that randomly loads the power supply in the device being snooped might not be totally effective, nor would EMI filters unless they were purpose-made for the rather low frequencies. And I can easily see a variant of the attack bypassing even those by using a carrier frequency lower than the utility's 50/60Hz... you'd just have to be really patient.
The only way I can see to prevent this is a specially made, double conversion UPS or similar storage-backed power supply that is carefully designed and sized to keep the power consumed from the wall completely independent of the power consumed by the device by averaging that power over the span of hours or maybe even days.
=Smidge=
Wouldn't help; They are varying the power the machine uses, and unless you have a power supply that can output a variable amount of power while keeping the power it draws from the wall constant (which would be either magical or horrendously inefficient at partial loads) there's no way to "filter" this sort of attack.
=Smidge=