now exporting some 100 billion gallons of water a year
Can someone explain to me how this sentence even makes sense? It seems to imply that the sate is somehow losing water forever by shipping it abroad. But when the water is consumed, whether in China or California, it will eventually make its way back out into the Pacific Ocean, which is the ultimate source for all of California's water. So once the water is used to grow a crop, for the purpose of California's future wetness, it doesn't really matter one iota where the crop ultimately gets consumed.
It should probably read "now exporting some 100 billion gallons of fresh water. When we run out of fresh water, the real wars begin.
I don't know what kind of a rock I've been living under, but I've never seen anyone attempting to take an upshot. I think a good retaliation would be to take a portrait of the dude and instagram him or whatever, calling him out as a pervert.
Fackebook prohibits all weapons sales. They always have. I don't see why illegal weapons sales are a big deal here, given that "illegal" is a subset of "all".
Also, my dream life is a blast without doing the lucid thing.
Sure, dreaming was always fun. But there is absolutely nothing like being able to regain agency in the dream state.
Seriously, if you're a vivid dreamer, you're halfway there. Give it a try. You'll wake up upon gaining dream awareness for a while, and then you won't. And once you have that experience of not waking up when becoming aware of being in a dream, you'll wish you had learned the technique sooner.
Seriously, I have given it a try. It's just that I'm already such a light sleeper, that awareness of sleeping is enough to wake me, pretty much every time. Enough so that if I become aware I'm dreaming, I try to convince myself that I'm not.
> treat ALL income the same for tax purposes - stop giving special treatment to unearned income (stocks, dividends, interest).
That makes a great sound bite. It's also a terrible idea that fails spectacularly when it's tried. Keep in mind stock dividends are what's left after taxes. The company makes money and pays their taxes. Whatever is left after taxes goes to the owners of the business in the form of dividends. Taxing the same income twice, at more than 25% each time, is how you destroy domestic industry and send all the jobs to China. This isn't theory, it's been done and the results are instructive. While it's a great sound bite, but we don't want to be like Greece, so nobody seriously proposes such a thing.
Bringing up Greece is just a total Red Herring. Okay, so you want dividends held sacred to avoid "double taxation." There is NO reason that when someone buys and sells stocks, making a profit that this should not be taxed the same as earned income.
> treat ALL income the same for tax purposes - stop giving special treatment to unearned income (stocks, dividends, interest).
That makes a great sound bite. It's also a terrible idea that fails spectacularly when it's tried. Keep in mind stock dividends are what's left after taxes. The company makes money and pays their taxes. Whatever is left after taxes goes to the owners of the business in the form of dividends. Taxing the same income twice, at more than 25% each time, is how you destroy domestic industry and send all the jobs to China. This isn't theory, it's been done and the results are instructive. While it's a great sound bite, but we don't want to be like Greece, so nobody seriously proposes such a thing.
Wrong. Dividends are paid regardless of profits. I know, I held WWE when they were paying WAY more dividends than profits. Yes, they can only do that for so long. Sorry, but all those non-workers who were born into the right family so they never have to work, just push their money around, need to pay taxes on their income. Same goes for CEOs that take millions and millions in stock bonuses to avoid income taxes. When income taxes were much higher (pre-Reagan), the US was an industrial powerhouse, so jobs don't automatically move to China. That's just the kind of argument the fatcats want you to believe. It's a lie.
It's always amazed me how little the topic of eliminating the upper limit is discussed when SS comes up. They always talk about reducing benefits, means-testing, and increasing the retirement age, when lifting the cap seems much easier. Although certainly there may be some who adapt as you say, because FICA is taken out of each paycheck, most above the cap just think of it as a raise later in the year that disappears again on the first of the year. I bet most would not change their work time, they would likely just suck it up (I know I would). Of course if you REALLY want to solve problems, treat ALL income the same for tax purposes - stop giving special treatment to unearned income (stocks, dividends, interest).
Are you intentionally obtuse? I mean no upper limit. Take FICA on every last dollar. Right now, they only tax the first $112K (approx), so the poor get taxed on all their money, while the rich only get taxed on some of it.
less than a decade ago we elected folks on "the Plan", and then we had a few years later "Change", and then there was the second coming of "Change"....
One cannot "use visual studio professionally". Such is a contradiction in terms. One can unprofessionally use visual studio. Or one can professionally not use visual studio. But other options are absent.
User posted in monospaced font - irony meter pegged at max.
You sit on the can long enough to read much? You need to eat more vegetables. I agree about reading manuals with examples, just not in your choice of locations.
99% of the time if you hear someone questioning the utility of using an IDE, notepad was never in the running as a serious option to begin with. Just stop it. Don't say it's name. Notepad is a 24 year old joke stuck in the 90s feature-wise. The runners are programs like Sublime Text, BBedit, Text Wrangler, gedit, Jedit, notepad++, or even vim.
Just because someone tells you that you should drive your car less doesn't mean they are forcing you to walk everywhere you go on your feet. You can bike. You can ride your motorcycle. You can ride the bus. You can ride an electric bycycle. You can rollerblade. You can ride in someone else's car. You can ride the train. You can fly in a plane.
Anyone mentioning Notepad seriously in their comments on this article has no knowledge of what a proper text editor is and have an apathy to find out so they can actually contibute meaningfully to the conversation.
He had to post AC because his account hasn't been activated yet - he's from the future, remember?
What ? In the future they don't know how to read (because of text-to-speech and text-to thought technologies), so he couldn't work out what to do with the Captcha?
(Actually, I don't think I know if there's a captcha on the sign up page; it was probably before captcha came along,
I think you misunderstood. He signed up in the future, so now that's he's back here in this time, he hasn't signed up yet, so his login doesn't work and he's commenting AC.
Most developers never break even on the $99 subscription fee, let alone for the equipment and almost never for the time. I know over 20, all hopped on the bandwagon and bought mac's. Not one has made $99. Most have abandoned their applications around the Iphone 4 days.
[citation needed]
Your claims are nonsense, unless all your friends are just basement-dwelling YOLOs with no actual programming skills. I have been an independent iOS developer for years (in my spare time, as I have a full-time job) and my proceeds always surpass the measly $99/year - which also gets you two "incidents" for access to Apple engineers to help debug your problem. Oh, and I never have problems with getting apps accepted, never. Your friends abandon their apps after 4 days! Hah! Real pros, I'm sure.
Ah, the old "language changes" line. People like you would say "math changes" when you get called out on saying 2+2=5. There's a difference between change and being flat out wrong. Calling people who eat dairy and fish vegetarians is simply wrong. This only started happening in the past few decades, and yuppies and hipsters doing it en masse doesn't make it correct.
There is now ambiguity as to what is meant by the word "vegetarian". You have to consider whether or not the person writing the word knew what it meant, when they wrote it, and if they're a tool bag like you who knows it's wrong but continues to use it incorrectly because they're stubborn clinging to a label. You're as bad as the jackasses who want people to use "kibibyte" or "non-flammable". You create ambiguity and confusion instead of removing it. People suffer for it, as does the language.
You're an idiot. Go check dictionary.com or wikipedia.org or any other source - vegetarian means not eating flesh. Language has always changed and always will. Do you only use the "original" meaning of every word? Do you know your mother?
If all of them are going to become mainstream, LGBTQ is going to need a whole lot more letters. I think it'd be best if we picked a handful of definitions and allowed for ranges within them. Vegetarianism has done this - sure, there's various names like octo-lacto-vegetarian for different degrees of it, but most of the time getting that specific only matters in the context of certain situations. I have no problem with recognizing different genders, but the more you try to granularize it, the more trouble you're going to run into defining them until every person on Earth uses a slightly different definition.
Vegetarian - doesn't consume animal products.
Vegan - doesn't consume or use animal products.
Hypocrite - claims to be a vegetarian but eats dairy, or fish, etc.
Moron - claims to be vegan but has a leather satchel.
"Vegetarians" who eat dairy or fish are absolutely not vegetarians and would never have called themselves vegetarians a few decades ago. But LA and New York hipster shits decided it was in vogue, then idiots who weren't vegetarians wanted to claim to be one, so they did, and now the word has been ruined.
Wrong. I have been a vegetarian for 34 years (long before the advent of hipsters). My definition is "does not eat anything that takes a shit." Yes, I eat cheese and eggs - you do not kill an animal to get these products (the proper term is lacto-ovo vegetarian, or just plain vegetarian). No, eggs are not animals - they arent' even fertilized in commercial production (and neither are my backyard variety).
Vegans do not eat any animal products, including eggs and cheese. Some do not eat honey (bee-vomit) and some go so far as to wear filters in their noses to prevent breathing in insects (I am not kidding).
And you forgot one label:
Asshole - likes to mock vegetarians because of their own guilt over killing animals.
The term originated in the late 1830s and became popular in the mid 1840s, during the whole Ramsgate thing.
It is exactly as I stated it - vegetarians consume no animal flesh or byproduct (such as dairy), vegans neither consume nor utilize (e.g., skins, bones, cat gut stitches, etc.) animal flesh or byproducts in any way.
For someone so passionate about "vegetarianism", you might want to learn what the word means before you go commandeering it.
FYI: Language changes. Get over it. I didn't commandeer shit. Look at the vegetarian community instead of being holier than thou.
Slashdot Mirror
now exporting some 100 billion gallons of water a year
Can someone explain to me how this sentence even makes sense? It seems to imply that the sate is somehow losing water forever by shipping it abroad. But when the water is consumed, whether in China or California, it will eventually make its way back out into the Pacific Ocean, which is the ultimate source for all of California's water. So once the water is used to grow a crop, for the purpose of California's future wetness, it doesn't really matter one iota where the crop ultimately gets consumed.
It should probably read "now exporting some 100 billion gallons of fresh water. When we run out of fresh water, the real wars begin.
I don't know what kind of a rock I've been living under, but I've never seen anyone attempting to take an upshot. I think a good retaliation would be to take a portrait of the dude and instagram him or whatever, calling him out as a pervert.
Fackebook prohibits all weapons sales. They always have. I don't see why illegal weapons sales are a big deal here, given that "illegal" is a subset of "all".
This is not news, because it's not new.
But is nice bait to stir up the gun-nuts.
False equivalence.
Can you hear me, you cow?
Sure, dreaming was always fun. But there is absolutely nothing like being able to regain agency in the dream state.
Seriously, if you're a vivid dreamer, you're halfway there. Give it a try. You'll wake up upon gaining dream awareness for a while, and then you won't. And once you have that experience of not waking up when becoming aware of being in a dream, you'll wish you had learned the technique sooner.
Seriously, I have given it a try. It's just that I'm already such a light sleeper, that awareness of sleeping is enough to wake me, pretty much every time. Enough so that if I become aware I'm dreaming, I try to convince myself that I'm not.
I'm sadly not optimistic that it may not happen in my lifetime.
Not so many negatives I'm not sure what you're not trying to not say.
FTFY
My main problem with lucid dreaming is that once I know I'm dreaming, I tend to wake up. Also, my dream life is a blast without doing the lucid thing.
> treat ALL income the same for tax purposes - stop giving special treatment to unearned income (stocks, dividends, interest).
That makes a great sound bite. It's also a terrible idea that fails spectacularly when it's tried. Keep in mind stock dividends are what's left after taxes. The company makes money and pays their taxes. Whatever is left after taxes goes to the owners of the business in the form of dividends. Taxing the same income twice, at more than 25% each time, is how you destroy domestic industry and send all the jobs to China. This isn't theory, it's been done and the results are instructive. While it's a great sound bite, but we don't want to be like Greece, so nobody seriously proposes such a thing.
Bringing up Greece is just a total Red Herring. Okay, so you want dividends held sacred to avoid "double taxation." There is NO reason that when someone buys and sells stocks, making a profit that this should not be taxed the same as earned income.
> treat ALL income the same for tax purposes - stop giving special treatment to unearned income (stocks, dividends, interest).
That makes a great sound bite. It's also a terrible idea that fails spectacularly when it's tried. Keep in mind stock dividends are what's left after taxes. The company makes money and pays their taxes. Whatever is left after taxes goes to the owners of the business in the form of dividends. Taxing the same income twice, at more than 25% each time, is how you destroy domestic industry and send all the jobs to China. This isn't theory, it's been done and the results are instructive. While it's a great sound bite, but we don't want to be like Greece, so nobody seriously proposes such a thing.
Wrong. Dividends are paid regardless of profits. I know, I held WWE when they were paying WAY more dividends than profits. Yes, they can only do that for so long. Sorry, but all those non-workers who were born into the right family so they never have to work, just push their money around, need to pay taxes on their income. Same goes for CEOs that take millions and millions in stock bonuses to avoid income taxes. When income taxes were much higher (pre-Reagan), the US was an industrial powerhouse, so jobs don't automatically move to China. That's just the kind of argument the fatcats want you to believe. It's a lie.
It's always amazed me how little the topic of eliminating the upper limit is discussed when SS comes up. They always talk about reducing benefits, means-testing, and increasing the retirement age, when lifting the cap seems much easier. Although certainly there may be some who adapt as you say, because FICA is taken out of each paycheck, most above the cap just think of it as a raise later in the year that disappears again on the first of the year. I bet most would not change their work time, they would likely just suck it up (I know I would). Of course if you REALLY want to solve problems, treat ALL income the same for tax purposes - stop giving special treatment to unearned income (stocks, dividends, interest).
Are you intentionally obtuse? I mean no upper limit. Take FICA on every last dollar. Right now, they only tax the first $112K (approx), so the poor get taxed on all their money, while the rich only get taxed on some of it.
Actually, if the income limit on FICA were lifted, SS would be uber-solvent. So much, that we could LOWER the retirement age.
less than a decade ago we elected folks on "the Plan", and then we had a few years later "Change", and then there was the second coming of "Change"....
But it's all Bush's fault....
Hillary 2014!
Fail. Next presidential campaign is 2016, troll.
One cannot "use visual studio professionally". Such is a contradiction in terms. One can unprofessionally use visual studio. Or one can professionally not use visual studio. But other options are absent.
User posted in monospaced font - irony meter pegged at max.
You sit on the can long enough to read much? You need to eat more vegetables. I agree about reading manuals with examples, just not in your choice of locations.
99% of the time if you hear someone questioning the utility of using an IDE, notepad was never in the running as a serious option to begin with. Just stop it. Don't say it's name. Notepad is a 24 year old joke stuck in the 90s feature-wise. The runners are programs like Sublime Text, BBedit, Text Wrangler, gedit, Jedit, notepad++, or even vim.
Just because someone tells you that you should drive your car less doesn't mean they are forcing you to walk everywhere you go on your feet. You can bike. You can ride your motorcycle. You can ride the bus. You can ride an electric bycycle. You can rollerblade. You can ride in someone else's car. You can ride the train. You can fly in a plane.
Anyone mentioning Notepad seriously in their comments on this article has no knowledge of what a proper text editor is and have an apathy to find out so they can actually contibute meaningfully to the conversation.
Pshaw! Edlin or nothing!
... it offers loads of little "this code block can be refactored this way for this reason" hints - shows you just what can be done and why.
Oh good -- I was worried if and when Clippy would find work again, what with the husband and little staples to feed.
Wait, Clippy is a chick?
What ? In the future they don't know how to read (because of text-to-speech and text-to thought technologies), so he couldn't work out what to do with the Captcha?
(Actually, I don't think I know if there's a captcha on the sign up page; it was probably before captcha came along,
I think you misunderstood. He signed up in the future, so now that's he's back here in this time, he hasn't signed up yet, so his login doesn't work and he's commenting AC.
I'm saddened to hear there are ACs in the future. BTW, how does Beta turn out?
He had to post AC because his account hasn't been activated yet - he's from the future, remember?
Its better to support half of 80% of the market than 90% of 20% of the market.
Um, no. All data points to iOS developers making more money than Android developers. Google it.
Most developers never break even on the $99 subscription fee, let alone for the equipment and almost never for the time. I know over 20, all hopped on the bandwagon and bought mac's. Not one has made $99. Most have abandoned their applications around the Iphone 4 days.
[citation needed]
Your claims are nonsense, unless all your friends are just basement-dwelling YOLOs with no actual programming skills. I have been an independent iOS developer for years (in my spare time, as I have a full-time job) and my proceeds always surpass the measly $99/year - which also gets you two "incidents" for access to Apple engineers to help debug your problem. Oh, and I never have problems with getting apps accepted, never. Your friends abandon their apps after 4 days! Hah! Real pros, I'm sure.
Ah, the old "language changes" line. People like you would say "math changes" when you get called out on saying 2+2=5. There's a difference between change and being flat out wrong. Calling people who eat dairy and fish vegetarians is simply wrong. This only started happening in the past few decades, and yuppies and hipsters doing it en masse doesn't make it correct.
There is now ambiguity as to what is meant by the word "vegetarian". You have to consider whether or not the person writing the word knew what it meant, when they wrote it, and if they're a tool bag like you who knows it's wrong but continues to use it incorrectly because they're stubborn clinging to a label. You're as bad as the jackasses who want people to use "kibibyte" or "non-flammable". You create ambiguity and confusion instead of removing it. People suffer for it, as does the language.
You're an idiot. Go check dictionary.com or wikipedia.org or any other source - vegetarian means not eating flesh. Language has always changed and always will. Do you only use the "original" meaning of every word? Do you know your mother?
What are you talking about?
He hasn't a clue.
If all of them are going to become mainstream, LGBTQ is going to need a whole lot more letters. I think it'd be best if we picked a handful of definitions and allowed for ranges within them. Vegetarianism has done this - sure, there's various names like octo-lacto-vegetarian for different degrees of it, but most of the time getting that specific only matters in the context of certain situations. I have no problem with recognizing different genders, but the more you try to granularize it, the more trouble you're going to run into defining them until every person on Earth uses a slightly different definition.
Vegetarian - doesn't consume animal products. Vegan - doesn't consume or use animal products. Hypocrite - claims to be a vegetarian but eats dairy, or fish, etc. Moron - claims to be vegan but has a leather satchel.
"Vegetarians" who eat dairy or fish are absolutely not vegetarians and would never have called themselves vegetarians a few decades ago. But LA and New York hipster shits decided it was in vogue, then idiots who weren't vegetarians wanted to claim to be one, so they did, and now the word has been ruined.
Wrong. I have been a vegetarian for 34 years (long before the advent of hipsters). My definition is "does not eat anything that takes a shit." Yes, I eat cheese and eggs - you do not kill an animal to get these products (the proper term is lacto-ovo vegetarian, or just plain vegetarian). No, eggs are not animals - they arent' even fertilized in commercial production (and neither are my backyard variety).
Vegans do not eat any animal products, including eggs and cheese. Some do not eat honey (bee-vomit) and some go so far as to wear filters in their noses to prevent breathing in insects (I am not kidding).
And you forgot one label: Asshole - likes to mock vegetarians because of their own guilt over killing animals.
The term originated in the late 1830s and became popular in the mid 1840s, during the whole Ramsgate thing.
It is exactly as I stated it - vegetarians consume no animal flesh or byproduct (such as dairy), vegans neither consume nor utilize (e.g., skins, bones, cat gut stitches, etc.) animal flesh or byproducts in any way.
For someone so passionate about "vegetarianism", you might want to learn what the word means before you go commandeering it.
FYI: Language changes. Get over it. I didn't commandeer shit. Look at the vegetarian community instead of being holier than thou.