meanwhile on the east cost of the US the electric everything idots are carving up some of the last large areas of unbroken forest so they can put wind turbines on the top of ever Appalachian hill and run transmission lines back to wherever.
Never mind the habitat destruction! Its less carbon!
by this logic we should use CGI because transporting actors to the set (often by gasp car) could result in their lives being ended if something went wrong.
The risk is very low, because the probability is remote, even if the cost is high. When the probability is so near zero there is little investment that is reasonable to control for it.
in terms of calories per hour of labor to procure it; its some of the cheapest food in history. Yes you might be able to get food slightly cheaper than fast food at the grocery, but remember now you need to invest additional time / labor in preparing it for consumption; if you value this time at your usual day rate, fast food often wins.
nor safe
Again on comparative basis you probably less likely to contract a food born illness purchasing something at a fast food restaurant; than almost anything else you could do. Now maybe long term a steady diet of items source only from fast food menus might have negative health impacts. There is not however much evidence to suggest this is problem unique to fast food. You could again eat a very high carb/sugar, high fat diet sourced elsewhere and would likely have most of the same health issues over time. Finally again in "historical context" a steady diet of what you can order at your typical fast food joint is probably more nutrious than what most of the western worlds population lived on as recently as a couple centuries ago.
And for "sustaining", watch "supersize me"
There were lots of problems with that documentry. Others have done similar experiments and got very different results.
I am not saying fast food is the best option, if you have time and resources to do other things. Its worth keeping in mind though that a couple dollars buys a lot of calories that are sterile, pleasant to consume, and available in abundance. There are a lot of people for whom its frequently their best option and again in historical context its pretty darn good one!
No the triumph of form over function is to blame. The issue in the name of meeting a certain style and aesthetic, Apple has built a building that is difficult to navigate for the humans its designed to house.
Art (visual art especially) can exist for its own sake, but Architecture *should* be functional because most spaces we design have a function and first and foremost they enable that function.
I think you are missing part of the picture though. Uber, and Lyft are essentially brokerages. Today we think of our stock broker as that jerk who just takes %2 of everything for pushing a few buttons or e-trade grabbing $12 every time *I* have an idea. The truth is we have government to thank for that nonsense. I can't buy securities on my own because of stupid out dated regulation. Originally though the broker was very very useful (and actually still is) Having a broker enabled you to invest in business without having to spend all day standing on a street corner haggling over paper certificates. Later it meant and today it meas someone has a compiled a nice list of funds on offer that have characteristics you can sort by and help match what you want to do. I don't know how you would discover many of these products without a middle man.
Uber and Lyft do exactly the same thing. They let an individual willing to work as a livery driver find a client who wants transportation. You can hate on them all you want but there IS value there. It is also probably a more efficient model than the traditional cab company. Which is not say we want the totally unregulated system on offer today to persist for various reasons but it really is a legitimate business. The same is true for these 'restaurant' brokers. They are pretty useful from a consumer perspective when you are visiting a place that isn't familiar to you and might have limited transportation (ie you are depending on uber, lyft, cabs). Who should foot the bill for the brokerage service, restaurant, consumer, both and what price that utility ought to command are all up for debate/market determination but you can't really argue there is no value.
The gig economy is just another extension of the wealthy trying to sell us a lie.
I don't think is a lie so much as sales pitch missing some key details. I also think the 1%ers don't quite understand the micro economies of less well do folks in this country as well as they imagine they do. They don't get their feelings and motivations at all. Hence Donald Trump, love him, hate him, or otherwise is now the President of the United States; after having run essentially as a populist + nationalist (which if you ask me are not dirty words). I am pretty sure a lot of the wealth gap comes down to the ability to import cheap labor, not so much goods. See when bring millions of $10 dvd players assembled by Foxxcon into the docks you might literally be importing goods but what your really importing is labor because that is the commodity (and yes its a commodity) that made it make sense to build those overseas. Free trade with nations that don't have similar labor practices hurts the American worker. Uber, Lyft, Fiverr, can pay drivers so little because they have so many driver without better employment options. If you good job with fixed hours assembling electronics for instance, you are far less likely to be sitting in your car all day wishing your cell phone would chirp so you can make a buck. Would Uber still exist probably but it would cost more and it pay more.
Now the free traders will argue that cheaper imported goods means the dollar goes farther and the nation is wealthier as a whole, we can enjoy a larger number of dvd players than we could otherwise. That might be true, especially over the short terms, and medium term of a 1/2 century or so. I think its also true that is hollowing removing entry level work hurting younger folks ability to get into the work force. Its hollowing out our lower economic classes as well, raising unemployment and more critically under employment (which is more dangerous because again over the short term its more sustainable, people can eat today but it means they are not building wealth they are not going to be able to educate their children or pay for their retirements) that we tend paper over in the short term. Basically Globalism is the cause of the wealth gap. I don't deny the total GDP might be bigger thanks to globalism and free-trade but the domestic distribution of wealth is also much more lopsided.
Except that isn't really true is it. You might not find much value in it personally. I would agree when at home I know what restaurants are around and can just easily pick up the phone or go to their websites directly; assuming I wanted to order ahead or get something delivered.
On the other hand when traveling its a different matter. Frequently I get into some city or part of city I have never been to before. I don't always rent a car if I am only visiting a client for day or two. So I have taken a cab or uber to a hotel. Gee something to eat would be nice... So seeing all my options in once place IS of value. It is something I as a consumer want.
Note i am not making any kind of moral judgement here. If what most consumers want is 'prepared food delivered to your door' and you are in the food service industry you'd better figure out how to meet that demand or you will be left behind by someone who does. Alternatively maybe you can carve out a niche space for yourself for people who still want to 'go somewhere' but a niche means exactly that, a small market where only a few of the best can thrive.
That said I understand the trepidation the middle tear restaurateur probably feels right now. Its not just the costs of delivery. Its the other higher margin up sells like, that second beer or another cocktail your wait staff convinces the customer, he'd enjoy it and after all he is celebrating! Or the the $6 2oz cheese cake in a cup that is decadent but not two decadent and hey girl your deserve it!
You loose the opportunity to make a lot of those sales with deliver and take out. My assumption is most restaurant dishes are not loss leaders but at least at a lot of the places I tend to each there is clearly more margin on some of those ancillaries than on the main plate items. Given a competitive market place you might not have the pricing power to raise tab on main plates either. You are competing with the places that have decided not to follow the new trend in the mean time, at least for the traditional portion of the business. Ultimately you might be re-aligning in the right way but that can mean some short term pain. Lots of restaurants are more or less hand to mouth, they may not be able to weather the changes at all and those that can might not be able to afford a misstep.
1) more engines is more parts, which is generally a recipe for more failures
2) more engines probably means more weight which means less total lifting capacity per unit of thrust. Even something as simple as a tank, a single larger volume tank be less material than say two tanks each of half size volume.
-- To use a computer analogy; suppose you have two disks. raid 0 or raid linear-> maximum chance of catastrophic failure
Put one disk in a drawer and use the other -> safer than raid 0
raid 1 -> redundancy least risk of catastrophic failure. --
So for what he is saying to be true. There must be minimal risk an engine failure affects other modules. If it detonates for example, does it damage the adjacent modules? The flights controls have to be capable of reliably altering plan to deal with a failure module; burn other thrusters longer, change attack angle, whatever. Finally you have to always leave enough extra capacity to tolerate some number of failures.
"The real, non-rhetorical question is: why is using that research in this way very bad?"
Because motivation and credibility of the source has to matter! If not the 4th Amendment might has well be written on toilet paper. Under this reasoning any random smuck can go to the local police as say "pots" is growing weed in his basement; and the police can turn around with nothing more than that and get a warrant to kick in your front door!
hey just need to show that they have some reason to suspect that the surveillance might show evidence of a crime
No! they need to show they have probable cause to think a crime was committed and the warrant execution would lead to evidence of that crime. Warrants have to be specific too! You don't get to say "he looks shady I want to search his house." It has to be more like "I have a corpse we extracted a 9mm round from so we suspect its a murder, I want bobs house for a recently fired 9mm hand gun because Sally saw him waving one around threatening Jim (the corpse) a few days prior."
or probably the most stupid human reason of all: It was easy, and they knew that the FISA court would rubber stamp their request regardless.
I mean, if I needed to get something authorized in my building and I could just grab some dodgy report, chop off the bits that would raise eyebrows, and hand it in to get rubber stamped, why would I bother going through the effort of doing a decent job?
Because being lazy like that, failing to dot your Is and cross your Ts in what is likely to become a matter of national interest means (if you believe he is guilty and I don't) that something like the President of the United States commits an act that might be sedition and has to be let off on a "technicality' that is why you "do a decent job."
You are forgetting McCabe said under oath the dossier was needed to get the FISA warrant. Why would he have said that if it was not true. Until McCabe gets brought up on charges for lying to Congress there is NO reason for anyone to doubt the Nunes memo's veracity that there was not warrant without the dossier.
Of course not. This is a 4-page (opinion) memo containing information cherry-picked from 400 pages if information, by a Congressman who use to work for the Trump campaign. Furthermore, the original source information is classified, so we cannot see it to gain any context
Ah but we do have context! We have the context of the entire opposition party protesting the release of this memo, an opposition party that for the first 6-8 months of Trump's term had exactly no qualms about leaking information. If this memo was just an opinion with cherry-picked examples they would not have fought so hard to keep it from release. The fact they did fight so hard means they know it will make it harder to keep the really damning facts under wraps now, or that they will ultimately have to give up acting on the Muller investigation results in order to keep those facts hidden. That is the 'context'.
Because your right; having read the memo -as a Trump supporter - I don't see what the big deal is, there is no knew evidence all it really says is Nunes agrees with what every Trump supported already expected was the case! Sure its reassuring that someone privy to intel shares those opinions; but hardly changes the debate any. The fact that Mark Warner is practically in tears over it on the other hand well.
I don't give a flying fuck about Hillary. I never voted for her at any level, and don't care for her at all. Her losing the election is not the part that looks like fascism. Trump trying to remove the independence of the FBI and DoJ and install people who are loyal to him above the nation, the law, or the constitution - that's the part that looks like fascism.
No you don't understand American civics and apparently half of our media does not either. The FBI and DOJ are NOT independent and are not supposed to be independent. They are executive agencies that serve at the pleasure of the president! The president is not above the law; but it is NOT the job of the FBI or the DOJ to investigate or prosecute the President. Arguably it is in fact the job of the DOJ to construct legal theories defending any action the President may take while he is the president.
Congress and the Courts on the other hand are independent! Which is why Congress enjoys subpoena power and has the ability to impeach the president and what the Senate has the ability to try him! Its why the Supreme court has the ability to rule on matters like executive privilege and mediate between the two. Finally its why Congress enjoys protection from arrest by the executive.
Under our Constitution if anyone cared to read or follow it anymore, the FBI has no business investigating the President and the President has no obligation to explain his reasoning or even offer one for firing anyone working at the FBI or DOJ; and exactly no-one has the right to question his motive in doing so; those are explicit powers he has.
If congress things there was crime committed by the executive its THEIR job to investigate. If YOU think there was a crime committed and congress isn't investigating its YOUR job to vote for some new congress critters.
In actuality, FISA (the court) was given bad information, but worked as expected. For example, in addition to the dossier the FBI cited a newspaper article as corroboration evidence and told the court that Steele did not provide the info for the article. In reality, Steele did, in fact provide the information for the newspaper to print the article, the FBI knew this, and didn't tell the court.
Without getting into wrong doing on the part of Trump and his people and if this does or does not justify removal of Muller, Rosenstine or anyone else. I think this should give us all pause. You are right the court did operate as expected. A secret court that hears only one sided arguments whose decision remain under seal long after they are implemented; surprise surprise issued the warrant the intel community asked for!
Sure even regular courts issue sealed wiretap warrants and similar but the arguments and supporting evidence for those are usually unsealed if when an indictment comes down. In other words the defend can review contest, and challenge if it was proper to have issued the warrant and if the evidence may be used. The parties involved are subject to a loss of trust if they are found to behave dishonorably, especially if such behavior becomes a pattern.
Because of the extended secrecy and general difficulty of review on and FISA decision it should be clear the process is simply not adequate to protect the 4th amendment rights of American citizens. The entire system depended on the professionalism and honorable conduct by the FBI and others, who have shown they can't really meet that standard.
Conclusion the FISA court should not have the authority to allow monitoring of American citizens and where American citizens end up being monitored coincidentally to monitoring a foreign national such materials should not be eligible for use in further investigation or prosecution of Americans.
Many would argue a ~2% CC card fee is near 0 too. The entire point of Btc was to eliminate middle men. Turns out the only way to make Btc workable is a middle man. I cal that FAILURE!
I personally find that people who see a "grey" everywhere are mostly cowards who are afraid to stand up, say, do, what is right etc. The world IS a pretty black and white place.
It is however possible for nations to co-exist in a state that is neither ally nor hostile. It should be possible to have fairly neutral trade relations without being antagonistic or buddy buddy lets all share each others secrets, five eyes... All it takes is a basic set of rules both parties can agree to play by. This should especially be the case where their is an ocean separate your boarders and a language to separate your culture.
Its the same way I can go into the local hardware store and buy a box a nails; the owner isn't necessarily a friend, but he/she isn't a foe either. The thing to do is just remember everyone is doing what is in their own interest. Don't expect any more; and don't do any less. In the case of US-Sino relations; we need to remember they are inferior and terrible culture and also a would be economic rival. It will bad for the world if the gain ascendancy over us. Trade though is also rapidly liberalizing. It just a question of making sure we are always gaining at least as much as that relationship costs us.
I only brought it up because its relevant in the context of the election. Legal arguments aside you cant make a moral argument there was serious problem with the election when both sides were doing equivalent things.
Honestly I am not even sure it was equivalent; when the current administration uses a unverified opposition research provided by a candidate a pretext to launch an investigation and abuses the secrecy of the FISA court process so they have prextext to violate the constitutional rights of the opposition candidate; I think that actual might pose a much more serious threat to freedom and our republic than a little forigen advertising.
Needless to say though there is no good remedy here! What are you going to do; toss Trump out and give Pence the presidency; what does that accomplish exactly? Especially when (I as a enthusiastic Trump voter) how could we ever know he was not in on it too? Do you suggest we give "Crooked" Hillary, a nickname that very much applies here the office? How is that fair people and States who came out for Trump and won him the election according to the rules? Should they not even get their party represented in the office? Should we have a completely new election even though there is not one shred of law to support doing that? Maybe we use the succession line and elevate Paul Ryan to the Presidency? - That is probably the nearest thing to something legal we could do and that is a huge stretch. Seriously there is literally no good solution!
Finally I never said all of your problems stem from your candidate loosing, I never even implied that. I don't even know what problem you have other than your insistence clinging to what is a flimsy conspiracy theory about how Trump got elected, and that seems pretty darn well correlated with your candidate having lost.
I am really getting tired of this, "how Russia manipulated the election BS".
Look folks its a democracy, people get a ton of information thrown at them from all kinds of sources, because we are open society, and than they make a decision - vote.
That is how the system works. Unless you can show me someone actually tampered with the balloting process or some kind of quid pro quo arrangement between the candidates and a foreign actor; I don't really see Russian interference as materiel. I mean so what if Wikileaks is a tool of the Russian government and so what if they timed leaks to damage the Clinton campaign? Does that make the documents they released untrue? When we have things like DKIM signatures and stuff on many of them that allowed verification? -No. So we the voters learned some facts, quite independent of who the messenger was. But but but its not fair! -- Okay well there were super pacs paying foreign spies to create BS dossiers about the other candidate. This how our politics works folks. If Russia running some facebook ads has your panties in a twist Fusion GPS should bother you at least as much; and that is before we get into the all the Clinton serving tweaks to the FBI memo and the almost public interference with investigating the former secretary of states handling of classified documents by the previous administration.
The entire narrative is stupid butt hurt by people who just can't get it thru their heads that they lost.
Yes, we can return to 2001 where any warm body can an A+ or Network+ or whatever after a week in "boot camp" and than we will know they are capable ready to help run the business with little oversight....
Oh wait that failed back than, just it and past few years of code academy nonsense is going to fail now.
There is certainly more of a focus on appearance and performance now, where as in the past there was much more emphasis on musical composition and more broadly song writing.
Think and Neil Diamond, Bob Dylan, even say the Beatles. All became good musicians in terms of performers. They were not necessarily natural virtuosos. The Beatles worked, worked, and worked some more playing small rooms like every day until they reached a level of mastery that could take the stuff Lennon and McCartney were writing and do it justice. Diamond is another example, he was as you writing stuff for others. Like any composer he certainly would have tried out his own work as he was developing it. He decided later to be his own act, and his skills as a composer allowed him to tailor stuff to what he can deliver well. We can say much the same for Dylan.
You look at today's acts or recent yesterdays acts, like Spears, Swift, Blink-182, etc and they are performers first, authors second. I am not sure that makes them any less talented but its a different set of inputs and you get different results out.
don't believe that's the case in 2017. the market is completely different in 2017 vs 2013
Completely different in that yes there is wider distribution now than back 2k13. To say the market is completely different is a bit of streach. This page has some tables with data from September '17. You can clearly see that top 1-2% people have about half the BTC market.
Oddly that is pretty close to the distribution of wealth in general across the world. Maybe this is simply a feature of some other driver in modern finance....Another topic.
At any rate it cannot be said that BTC isn't thinly traded and their are not a handful of people with large enough holdings to manipulate the market. This isn't a BTC specific problem, Soros did it with the Pound in the 90s but... its clearly not a problem BTC has solved either.
Not to mention the huge amounts of concrete required the manufacture of which is one of the most carbon intensive parts of the construction materials industry.
It is a good question. Its seems like some version of "All Clear" would have been a foreseeable need. Even is said "all clear" message is just that and not one to specifically address a prior alert having gone out in error, it still seems like you would/could immediately send the "all clear" to get most people to stop panicking and than clarify the original message went out in error on other channels.
A lot of people are commenting why doesn't this have more safety mechanisms, why is their no multi-party authorization needed etc. When we are talking about a disaster where there is only seconds between detection and catastrophic event that does not give people much time to respond. Anything that could introduce any delay in notifications going out SHOULD be considered unacceptable!
When you can't risk putting in technical controls thought that just makes the "people and process" elements that much more critical. At a minimum there should be frequent training / simulation both for new and veteran operators. That should include running the scenario beyond the initial alert goes out. There really should have been a run-book for "crisis over and we seem to be still alive" even if not perfectly adapted to actual events that would have provided some guidance on what to do which would have allowed someone to do something substantive toward fixing the glitch in less than 38min time.
Slashdot Mirror
meanwhile on the east cost of the US the electric everything idots are carving up some of the last large areas of unbroken forest so they can put wind turbines on the top of ever Appalachian hill and run transmission lines back to wherever.
Never mind the habitat destruction! Its less carbon!
by this logic we should use CGI because transporting actors to the set (often by gasp car) could result in their lives being ended if something went wrong.
The risk is very low, because the probability is remote, even if the cost is high. When the probability is so near zero there is little investment that is reasonable to control for it.
It is neither inexpensive
in terms of calories per hour of labor to procure it; its some of the cheapest food in history. Yes you might be able to get food slightly cheaper than fast food at the grocery, but remember now you need to invest additional time / labor in preparing it for consumption; if you value this time at your usual day rate, fast food often wins.
nor safe
Again on comparative basis you probably less likely to contract a food born illness purchasing something at a fast food restaurant; than almost anything else you could do. Now maybe long term a steady diet of items source only from fast food menus might have negative health impacts. There is not however much evidence to suggest this is problem unique to fast food. You could again eat a very high carb/sugar, high fat diet sourced elsewhere and would likely have most of the same health issues over time. Finally again in "historical context" a steady diet of what you can order at your typical fast food joint is probably more nutrious than what most of the western worlds population lived on as recently as a couple centuries ago.
And for "sustaining", watch "supersize me"
There were lots of problems with that documentry. Others have done similar experiments and got very different results.
I am not saying fast food is the best option, if you have time and resources to do other things. Its worth keeping in mind though that a couple dollars buys a lot of calories that are sterile, pleasant to consume, and available in abundance. There are a lot of people for whom its frequently their best option and again in historical context its pretty darn good one!
No the triumph of form over function is to blame. The issue in the name of meeting a certain style and aesthetic, Apple has built a building that is difficult to navigate for the humans its designed to house.
Art (visual art especially) can exist for its own sake, but Architecture *should* be functional because most spaces we design have a function and first and foremost they enable that function.
You realize Opera is just webkit now. So there is no point really. You might as well just use chromium
I think you are missing part of the picture though. Uber, and Lyft are essentially brokerages. Today we think of our stock broker as that jerk who just takes %2 of everything for pushing a few buttons or e-trade grabbing $12 every time *I* have an idea. The truth is we have government to thank for that nonsense. I can't buy securities on my own because of stupid out dated regulation. Originally though the broker was very very useful (and actually still is) Having a broker enabled you to invest in business without having to spend all day standing on a street corner haggling over paper certificates. Later it meant and today it meas someone has a compiled a nice list of funds on offer that have characteristics you can sort by and help match what you want to do. I don't know how you would discover many of these products without a middle man.
Uber and Lyft do exactly the same thing. They let an individual willing to work as a livery driver find a client who wants transportation. You can hate on them all you want but there IS value there. It is also probably a more efficient model than the traditional cab company. Which is not say we want the totally unregulated system on offer today to persist for various reasons but it really is a legitimate business. The same is true for these 'restaurant' brokers. They are pretty useful from a consumer perspective when you are visiting a place that isn't familiar to you and might have limited transportation (ie you are depending on uber, lyft, cabs). Who should foot the bill for the brokerage service, restaurant, consumer, both and what price that utility ought to command are all up for debate/market determination but you can't really argue there is no value.
The gig economy is just another extension of the wealthy trying to sell us a lie.
I don't think is a lie so much as sales pitch missing some key details. I also think the 1%ers don't quite understand the micro economies of less well do folks in this country as well as they imagine they do. They don't get their feelings and motivations at all. Hence Donald Trump, love him, hate him, or otherwise is now the President of the United States; after having run essentially as a populist + nationalist (which if you ask me are not dirty words). I am pretty sure a lot of the wealth gap comes down to the ability to import cheap labor, not so much goods. See when bring millions of $10 dvd players assembled by Foxxcon into the docks you might literally be importing goods but what your really importing is labor because that is the commodity (and yes its a commodity) that made it make sense to build those overseas. Free trade with nations that don't have similar labor practices hurts the American worker. Uber, Lyft, Fiverr, can pay drivers so little because they have so many driver without better employment options. If you good job with fixed hours assembling electronics for instance, you are far less likely to be sitting in your car all day wishing your cell phone would chirp so you can make a buck. Would Uber still exist probably but it would cost more and it pay more.
Now the free traders will argue that cheaper imported goods means the dollar goes farther and the nation is wealthier as a whole, we can enjoy a larger number of dvd players than we could otherwise. That might be true, especially over the short terms, and medium term of a 1/2 century or so. I think its also true that is hollowing removing entry level work hurting younger folks ability to get into the work force. Its hollowing out our lower economic classes as well, raising unemployment and more critically under employment (which is more dangerous because again over the short term its more sustainable, people can eat today but it means they are not building wealth they are not going to be able to educate their children or pay for their retirements) that we tend paper over in the short term. Basically Globalism is the cause of the wealth gap. I don't deny the total GDP might be bigger thanks to globalism and free-trade but the domestic distribution of wealth is also much more lopsided.
but they're 0-value adding middlemen
Except that isn't really true is it. You might not find much value in it personally. I would agree when at home I know what restaurants are around and can just easily pick up the phone or go to their websites directly; assuming I wanted to order ahead or get something delivered.
On the other hand when traveling its a different matter. Frequently I get into some city or part of city I have never been to before. I don't always rent a car if I am only visiting a client for day or two. So I have taken a cab or uber to a hotel. Gee something to eat would be nice... So seeing all my options in once place IS of value. It is something I as a consumer want.
Note i am not making any kind of moral judgement here. If what most consumers want is 'prepared food delivered to your door' and you are in the food service industry you'd better figure out how to meet that demand or you will be left behind by someone who does. Alternatively maybe you can carve out a niche space for yourself for people who still want to 'go somewhere' but a niche means exactly that, a small market where only a few of the best can thrive.
That said I understand the trepidation the middle tear restaurateur probably feels right now. Its not just the costs of delivery. Its the other higher margin up sells like, that second beer or another cocktail your wait staff convinces the customer, he'd enjoy it and after all he is celebrating! Or the the $6 2oz cheese cake in a cup that is decadent but not two decadent and hey girl your deserve it!
You loose the opportunity to make a lot of those sales with deliver and take out. My assumption is most restaurant dishes are not loss leaders but at least at a lot of the places I tend to each there is clearly more margin on some of those ancillaries than on the main plate items. Given a competitive market place you might not have the pricing power to raise tab on main plates either. You are competing with the places that have decided not to follow the new trend in the mean time, at least for the traditional portion of the business. Ultimately you might be re-aligning in the right way but that can mean some short term pain. Lots of restaurants are more or less hand to mouth, they may not be able to weather the changes at all and those that can might not be able to afford a misstep.
1) more engines is more parts, which is generally a recipe for more failures
2) more engines probably means more weight which means less total lifting capacity per unit of thrust. Even something as simple as a tank, a single larger volume tank be less material than say two tanks each of half size volume.
--
To use a computer analogy; suppose you have two disks.
raid 0 or raid linear-> maximum chance of catastrophic failure
Put one disk in a drawer and use the other -> safer than raid 0
raid 1 -> redundancy least risk of catastrophic failure.
--
So for what he is saying to be true. There must be minimal risk an engine failure affects other modules. If it detonates for example, does it damage the adjacent modules? The flights controls have to be capable of reliably altering plan to deal with a failure module; burn other thrusters longer, change attack angle, whatever. Finally you have to always leave enough extra capacity to tolerate some number of failures.
"The real, non-rhetorical question is: why is using that research in this way very bad?"
Because motivation and credibility of the source has to matter! If not the 4th Amendment might has well be written on toilet paper. Under this reasoning any random smuck can go to the local police as say "pots" is growing weed in his basement; and the police can turn around with nothing more than that and get a warrant to kick in your front door!
hey just need to show that they have some reason to suspect that the surveillance might show evidence of a crime
No! they need to show they have probable cause to think a crime was committed and the warrant execution would lead to evidence of that crime. Warrants have to be specific too! You don't get to say "he looks shady I want to search his house." It has to be more like "I have a corpse we extracted a 9mm round from so we suspect its a murder, I want bobs house for a recently fired 9mm hand gun because Sally saw him waving one around threatening Jim (the corpse) a few days prior."
That isn't "some reason" and "might show"
or probably the most stupid human reason of all: It was easy, and they knew that the FISA court would rubber stamp their request regardless.
I mean, if I needed to get something authorized in my building and I could just grab some dodgy report, chop off the bits that would raise eyebrows, and hand it in to get rubber stamped, why would I bother going through the effort of doing a decent job?
Because being lazy like that, failing to dot your Is and cross your Ts in what is likely to become a matter of national interest means (if you believe he is guilty and I don't) that something like the President of the United States commits an act that might be sedition and has to be let off on a "technicality' that is why you "do a decent job."
You are forgetting McCabe said under oath the dossier was needed to get the FISA warrant. Why would he have said that if it was not true. Until McCabe gets brought up on charges for lying to Congress there is NO reason for anyone to doubt the Nunes memo's veracity that there was not warrant without the dossier.
Of course not. This is a 4-page (opinion) memo containing information cherry-picked from 400 pages if information, by a Congressman who use to work for the Trump campaign. Furthermore, the original source information is classified, so we cannot see it to gain any context
Ah but we do have context! We have the context of the entire opposition party protesting the release of this memo, an opposition party that for the first 6-8 months of Trump's term had exactly no qualms about leaking information. If this memo was just an opinion with cherry-picked examples they would not have fought so hard to keep it from release. The fact they did fight so hard means they know it will make it harder to keep the really damning facts under wraps now, or that they will ultimately have to give up acting on the Muller investigation results in order to keep those facts hidden. That is the 'context'.
Because your right; having read the memo -as a Trump supporter - I don't see what the big deal is, there is no knew evidence all it really says is Nunes agrees with what every Trump supported already expected was the case! Sure its reassuring that someone privy to intel shares those opinions; but hardly changes the debate any. The fact that Mark Warner is practically in tears over it on the other hand well.
I don't give a flying fuck about Hillary. I never voted for her at any level, and don't care for her at all. Her losing the election is not the part that looks like fascism. Trump trying to remove the independence of the FBI and DoJ and install people who are loyal to him above the nation, the law, or the constitution - that's the part that looks like fascism.
No you don't understand American civics and apparently half of our media does not either. The FBI and DOJ are NOT independent and are not supposed to be independent. They are executive agencies that serve at the pleasure of the president! The president is not above the law; but it is NOT the job of the FBI or the DOJ to investigate or prosecute the President. Arguably it is in fact the job of the DOJ to construct legal theories defending any action the President may take while he is the president.
Congress and the Courts on the other hand are independent! Which is why Congress enjoys subpoena power and has the ability to impeach the president and what the Senate has the ability to try him! Its why the Supreme court has the ability to rule on matters like executive privilege and mediate between the two. Finally its why Congress enjoys protection from arrest by the executive.
Under our Constitution if anyone cared to read or follow it anymore, the FBI has no business investigating the President and the President has no obligation to explain his reasoning or even offer one for firing anyone working at the FBI or DOJ; and exactly no-one has the right to question his motive in doing so; those are explicit powers he has.
If congress things there was crime committed by the executive its THEIR job to investigate. If YOU think there was a crime committed and congress isn't investigating its YOUR job to vote for some new congress critters.
In actuality, FISA (the court) was given bad information, but worked as expected. For example, in addition to the dossier the FBI cited a newspaper article as corroboration evidence and told the court that Steele did not provide the info for the article. In reality, Steele did, in fact provide the information for the newspaper to print the article, the FBI knew this, and didn't tell the court.
Without getting into wrong doing on the part of Trump and his people and if this does or does not justify removal of Muller, Rosenstine or anyone else. I think this should give us all pause. You are right the court did operate as expected. A secret court that hears only one sided arguments whose decision remain under seal long after they are implemented; surprise surprise issued the warrant the intel community asked for!
Sure even regular courts issue sealed wiretap warrants and similar but the arguments and supporting evidence for those are usually unsealed if when an indictment comes down. In other words the defend can review contest, and challenge if it was proper to have issued the warrant and if the evidence may be used. The parties involved are subject to a loss of trust if they are found to behave dishonorably, especially if such behavior becomes a pattern.
Because of the extended secrecy and general difficulty of review on and FISA decision it should be clear the process is simply not adequate to protect the 4th amendment rights of American citizens. The entire system depended on the professionalism and honorable conduct by the FBI and others, who have shown they can't really meet that standard.
Conclusion the FISA court should not have the authority to allow monitoring of American citizens and where American citizens end up being monitored coincidentally to monitoring a foreign national such materials should not be eligible for use in further investigation or prosecution of Americans.
Many would argue a ~2% CC card fee is near 0 too. The entire point of Btc was to eliminate middle men. Turns out the only way to make Btc workable is a middle man. I cal that FAILURE!
I personally find that people who see a "grey" everywhere are mostly cowards who are afraid to stand up, say, do, what is right etc. The world IS a pretty black and white place.
It is however possible for nations to co-exist in a state that is neither ally nor hostile. It should be possible to have fairly neutral trade relations without being antagonistic or buddy buddy lets all share each others secrets, five eyes... All it takes is a basic set of rules both parties can agree to play by. This should especially be the case where their is an ocean separate your boarders and a language to separate your culture.
Its the same way I can go into the local hardware store and buy a box a nails; the owner isn't necessarily a friend, but he/she isn't a foe either. The thing to do is just remember everyone is doing what is in their own interest. Don't expect any more; and don't do any less. In the case of US-Sino relations; we need to remember they are inferior and terrible culture and also a would be economic rival. It will bad for the world if the gain ascendancy over us. Trade though is also rapidly liberalizing. It just a question of making sure we are always gaining at least as much as that relationship costs us.
I only brought it up because its relevant in the context of the election. Legal arguments aside you cant make a moral argument there was serious problem with the election when both sides were doing equivalent things.
Honestly I am not even sure it was equivalent; when the current administration uses a unverified opposition research provided by a candidate a pretext to launch an investigation and abuses the secrecy of the FISA court process so they have prextext to violate the constitutional rights of the opposition candidate; I think that actual might pose a much more serious threat to freedom and our republic than a little forigen advertising.
Needless to say though there is no good remedy here! What are you going to do; toss Trump out and give Pence the presidency; what does that accomplish exactly? Especially when (I as a enthusiastic Trump voter) how could we ever know he was not in on it too? Do you suggest we give "Crooked" Hillary, a nickname that very much applies here the office? How is that fair people and States who came out for Trump and won him the election according to the rules? Should they not even get their party represented in the office? Should we have a completely new election even though there is not one shred of law to support doing that? Maybe we use the succession line and elevate Paul Ryan to the Presidency? - That is probably the nearest thing to something legal we could do and that is a huge stretch. Seriously there is literally no good solution!
Finally I never said all of your problems stem from your candidate loosing, I never even implied that. I don't even know what problem you have other than your insistence clinging to what is a flimsy conspiracy theory about how Trump got elected, and that seems pretty darn well correlated with your candidate having lost.
I am really getting tired of this, "how Russia manipulated the election BS".
Look folks its a democracy, people get a ton of information thrown at them from all kinds of sources, because we are open society, and than they make a decision - vote.
That is how the system works. Unless you can show me someone actually tampered with the balloting process or some kind of quid pro quo arrangement between the candidates and a foreign actor; I don't really see Russian interference as materiel. I mean so what if Wikileaks is a tool of the Russian government and so what if they timed leaks to damage the Clinton campaign? Does that make the documents they released untrue? When we have things like DKIM signatures and stuff on many of them that allowed verification? -No. So we the voters learned some facts, quite independent of who the messenger was. But but but its not fair! -- Okay well there were super pacs paying foreign spies to create BS dossiers about the other candidate. This how our politics works folks. If Russia running some facebook ads has your panties in a twist Fusion GPS should bother you at least as much; and that is before we get into the all the Clinton serving tweaks to the FBI memo and the almost public interference with investigating the former secretary of states handling of classified documents by the previous administration.
The entire narrative is stupid butt hurt by people who just can't get it thru their heads that they lost.
Yes, we can return to 2001 where any warm body can an A+ or Network+ or whatever after a week in "boot camp" and than we will know they are capable ready to help run the business with little oversight....
Oh wait that failed back than, just it and past few years of code academy nonsense is going to fail now.
There is certainly more of a focus on appearance and performance now, where as in the past there was much more emphasis on musical composition and more broadly song writing.
Think and Neil Diamond, Bob Dylan, even say the Beatles. All became good musicians in terms of performers. They were not necessarily natural virtuosos. The Beatles worked, worked, and worked some more playing small rooms like every day until they reached a level of mastery that could take the stuff Lennon and McCartney were writing and do it justice. Diamond is another example, he was as you writing stuff for others. Like any composer he certainly would have tried out his own work as he was developing it. He decided later to be his own act, and his skills as a composer allowed him to tailor stuff to what he can deliver well. We can say much the same for Dylan.
You look at today's acts or recent yesterdays acts, like Spears, Swift, Blink-182, etc and they are performers first, authors second. I am not sure that makes them any less talented but its a different set of inputs and you get different results out.
don't believe that's the case in 2017. the market is completely different in 2017 vs 2013
Completely different in that yes there is wider distribution now than back 2k13. To say the market is completely different is a bit of streach. This page has some tables with data from September '17. You can clearly see that top 1-2% people have about half the BTC market.
https://medium.com/@BambouClub...
Oddly that is pretty close to the distribution of wealth in general across the world. Maybe this is simply a feature of some other driver in modern finance....Another topic.
At any rate it cannot be said that BTC isn't thinly traded and their are not a handful of people with large enough holdings to manipulate the market. This isn't a BTC specific problem, Soros did it with the Pound in the 90s but... its clearly not a problem BTC has solved either.
Not to mention the huge amounts of concrete required the manufacture of which is one of the most carbon intensive parts of the construction materials industry.
It is a good question. Its seems like some version of "All Clear" would have been a foreseeable need. Even is said "all clear" message is just that and not one to specifically address a prior alert having gone out in error, it still seems like you would/could immediately send the "all clear" to get most people to stop panicking and than clarify the original message went out in error on other channels.
A lot of people are commenting why doesn't this have more safety mechanisms, why is their no multi-party authorization needed etc. When we are talking about a disaster where there is only seconds between detection and catastrophic event that does not give people much time to respond. Anything that could introduce any delay in notifications going out SHOULD be considered unacceptable!
When you can't risk putting in technical controls thought that just makes the "people and process" elements that much more critical. At a minimum there should be frequent training / simulation both for new and veteran operators. That should include running the scenario beyond the initial alert goes out. There really should have been a run-book for "crisis over and we seem to be still alive" even if not perfectly adapted to actual events that would have provided some guidance on what to do which would have allowed someone to do something substantive toward fixing the glitch in less than 38min time.