No, it's really not. It's an expansion of the limited liability corporation - something that was invented for economic reasons well after the country's founding. Yes, the concept existed - but it was used for things like building bridges and such. The jump to corporate personhood is major... the same advantages of scale are now applied to the political sphere. This is not a minor change.
The first would require that the Fed cannot spend more than it has revenue.
I also want a balanced budget amendment, but I think there should be a little more flexibility. I was thinking that the infrastructure borrowing can be a "good" kind of debt, and that the restrictions should be based on something like a 5 year average to allow extra spending during recessions. Exceeding the limits should result in automatic, across-the-board cuts in spending split evenly with increases in revenue. That would discourage either side from using the automatic system as a political tool.
The "good" part is very subjective. I find myself far more short of time than of music these days. Generally I hear something I like on WXPN, which I have on in my car. In the course of exploring that music on YouTube, I inevitably run across other artists. Not just from YouTube's algorithms, but also from the comments - which I read through as the song play. As the music plays, I read up about the artist on Wikipedia or the various music websites, and that provides even more leads as I search for bandmates, producers, writers on the album, opening acts, etc. I can literally do that until my eyes won't stay open anymore. And yeah, sometimes (often, actually) the journey leads to something I hadn't heard of from the 60s or 70s - but just as often I end up at something pretty modern. I don't know what types of music you like, but for my decidedly rock-centered preferences, I'm like a kid in a candy store.
Using the latest Presidential election as an example, a vote for Hillary or The Donald would get you no closer to reform*. You could stay away from the polls entirely, or you can at least register a protest of sorts. Stein was the only national candidate with an emphatic stance on overturning Citizens United. More people in the primaries voting for Sanders and, uh, Lindsey Graham... ahem, were the only way to get mainstream party reformers on the November ballot.
No candidate - not one - was talking about voting reform like approval, ranked, or IR voting.
*Hillary was technically "against" Citizens United, as was O'Malley... but only in words, really. Both said that they way they would fight it was by appointing judges who are against it. Legislating through the judiciary is a terrible idea because you aren't always the one appointing judges and the only recourse is to change the friggin' Constitution or wait 30 years for the courts to slowly turn over.
Quite the opposite. Both parties have their corporate masters and only play off us against one another on the "wedge issues" that don't actually matter that much in the longer arc of history.
The solution to that is ranked choice/instant runoff voting for primaries and elections:
I would LOVE that. But first people need to go out and vote in the primaries AND/OR vote third party. Change won't come from establishment politicians - we need to be willing to elect some nutjobs who promise to overturn Citizen's United. Bernie Sanders is economically retarded, but he'd absolutely get my vote because a temporary setback in GDP growth is SO worth throwing the moneylenders out of the temple.
Agreed. Fuck 'em all. How can anyone argue that pre-1972 music needs MORE protection than when the artist was first incentivized to write and record the song? This is pure giveaways to corporate rightsholders. Our system is not set up to benefit society - obvious stuff, but needs to be reiterated I guess. Stop voting for these people.
I simply don't understand people who say there isn't any good music today. A music fan can spend an eternity on YouTube, just don't start your search with Quavo's B U B B L E G U M.
What kind of fools do they think we are? We've been taping stuff off of the radio since before I was born in the 70s. Now we listen to music through YouTube and "tape" off of that instead. Only in the mind of an IP lawyer is there some kind of moral distinction here. I'll do this until it is technically infeasible to do so, and I'll sleep just fine at night.
You fork the open source code and move on with life?
Almost every single Python project has a cutesy "y" in it somewhere, it's just the way it is done. Besides, Google searches are much easier when you have a unique search term.
I agree - I was only addressing geantvert's comments about fuel. As you point out, there are plenty of other reasons besides efficiency that flying is more expensive.
Worse, better... these are usually compared against the averages. In reality, everything - temperature estimates, predictions, ocean levels - have pretty large error ranges. For the most part, actual measurements are falling within the error bars of the predictions.
Their doom and gloom warnings have always been about the distant future, and they continue to be. This isn't about people proclaiming the end of the world is near, and then the date passes with nothing happening. The claims they have made about the near-time have actually come to pass - actual observed global warming is well within the predictions made by their models. There is no reason to doubt that they will get less accurate with time and refinement.
having been adjusted and interpolated time and again
Of course it's been adjusted and interpolated - how else to you normalize inputs from more than one source? They don't have perfect data; it's all observational science. They don't have lots of earths to experiment on, or the ability to jump back in time with proper instrumentation.
flying requires significantly more energy than driving so this is probably going to be quite expensive.
You are probably right, though if energy is the only driver than this problem could largely disappear as the cost:capacity of batteries drops. I mean, it won't disappear because cars will also see the same benefits, so flying will always cost more than driving. But if you use fuel costs of cars today as your baseline, it's possible that flying would be cost-competitive. Certainly you can see how the premium might be worthwhile for something like express delivery, which often involves aircraft now anyway.
And they intend to test that with your life and mine.
Mostly, they'll be testing it on people who knowingly buy or get into a self-driving car. Yes, they could kill pedestrians or people in other cars, too. What can I say? Are we going to choose this moment to suddenly take a new approach to automotive innovation? If so, I hope you like paying Boeing prices for cars.
How will YOU like that when it takes longer to get anywhere?
I'll revel in the extra free time when I'm freed from the tedium of driving.
That car wasn't driverless. It was in automatic mode, but the driver wasn't paying attention. Also, not a Waymo car - it was an Uber. That's kind of like arguing that my neighbor got into an accident, therefore I am a bad driver.
No it does not imply that at all. I'm sure the taxi's destinations will be heavily constrained at first. There's been a self-driving bus going up and down the Vegas strip for months now, but that doesn't mean self-driving buses are ready to go anywhere man-driven buses go.
Of course everyone with an experience different from your own is a lying shill...
Replying to your actual point, I live just outside of Philly. People SHOULD stop at out-of-service lights, but I'd say 25-75% do not, depending on the light - especially if one of the roads is significantly larger than the other (2-lane vs 1-lane, for instance). It's breathtakingly stupid.
I've got it. I'm not claiming that self-driven cars are anywhere near ready to completely take over for humans. And even if they were, the cost is currently not economically viable.
With that said, the parameters of their operation is currently constrained. That makes the problem much simpler, and it means that potential solutions to future problems can be tested against the same dataset as the original software, and then the solution can be fanned out in stages. You cannot easily test human and infrastructure changes in such a manner - you pretty much need to wait for the field results to come in... a botched intersection design with human drivers is going to remain dangerous until money is available for capital improvements. A perennial problem like drivers blowing through intersections with dark traffic lights would probably require some kind of technological solution.
I don't think anyone is talking about letting automated taxis tackle arbitrary roads under arbitrary conditions. Baby steps.
It's not ridiculous at all. Your assumption that the existing system is simple is ridiculous. 30,000 automotive deaths per year is a sufficiently large problem to solve such that if it were easy it would have been done by now. You are going after me for data - where's your data? We are in the same position.
We have a Switch, and I think it's great. But in my family (sample size of one) this is my observation: The kids only use the Switch when they have friends over and want to play the multiplayer games. They'd rather play on their tablets or their Chromebooks. In my 9-year-old's case, he likes Minecraft and will play it on the Switch, but he's much happier with the full Java version that he plays on the Linux partition of his Chromebook.
I think Nintendo has the unfortunate position of being the "for kids" console for a generation of kids who don't care about consoles. The portability is nice, but constrained by the battery life. Younger kids can't really handle the responsibility of carrying it around, though - and older kids already carry around a phone. I think MS and Sony's focus on more adult gamers actually makes more sense.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it's really not. It's an expansion of the limited liability corporation - something that was invented for economic reasons well after the country's founding. Yes, the concept existed - but it was used for things like building bridges and such. The jump to corporate personhood is major... the same advantages of scale are now applied to the political sphere. This is not a minor change.
The first would require that the Fed cannot spend more than it has revenue.
I also want a balanced budget amendment, but I think there should be a little more flexibility. I was thinking that the infrastructure borrowing can be a "good" kind of debt, and that the restrictions should be based on something like a 5 year average to allow extra spending during recessions. Exceeding the limits should result in automatic, across-the-board cuts in spending split evenly with increases in revenue. That would discourage either side from using the automatic system as a political tool.
The "good" part is very subjective. I find myself far more short of time than of music these days. Generally I hear something I like on WXPN, which I have on in my car. In the course of exploring that music on YouTube, I inevitably run across other artists. Not just from YouTube's algorithms, but also from the comments - which I read through as the song play. As the music plays, I read up about the artist on Wikipedia or the various music websites, and that provides even more leads as I search for bandmates, producers, writers on the album, opening acts, etc. I can literally do that until my eyes won't stay open anymore. And yeah, sometimes (often, actually) the journey leads to something I hadn't heard of from the 60s or 70s - but just as often I end up at something pretty modern. I don't know what types of music you like, but for my decidedly rock-centered preferences, I'm like a kid in a candy store.
is almost always a 100% mistake
Using the latest Presidential election as an example, a vote for Hillary or The Donald would get you no closer to reform*. You could stay away from the polls entirely, or you can at least register a protest of sorts. Stein was the only national candidate with an emphatic stance on overturning Citizens United. More people in the primaries voting for Sanders and, uh, Lindsey Graham... ahem, were the only way to get mainstream party reformers on the November ballot.
No candidate - not one - was talking about voting reform like approval, ranked, or IR voting.
*Hillary was technically "against" Citizens United, as was O'Malley... but only in words, really. Both said that they way they would fight it was by appointing judges who are against it. Legislating through the judiciary is a terrible idea because you aren't always the one appointing judges and the only recourse is to change the friggin' Constitution or wait 30 years for the courts to slowly turn over.
Not saying you are making a partisan accusation
Quite the opposite. Both parties have their corporate masters and only play off us against one another on the "wedge issues" that don't actually matter that much in the longer arc of history.
The solution to that is ranked choice/instant runoff voting for primaries and elections:
I would LOVE that. But first people need to go out and vote in the primaries AND/OR vote third party. Change won't come from establishment politicians - we need to be willing to elect some nutjobs who promise to overturn Citizen's United. Bernie Sanders is economically retarded, but he'd absolutely get my vote because a temporary setback in GDP growth is SO worth throwing the moneylenders out of the temple.
You think that's bad, try loading the SNAP on non-SNAP platforms.
But.. but... dpkg -i plex is so hard without SNAP!
Normally I'd admonish you about dragging Trump into a Slashdot story, but in this case it is both on-topic and well-deserved.
Agreed. Fuck 'em all. How can anyone argue that pre-1972 music needs MORE protection than when the artist was first incentivized to write and record the song? This is pure giveaways to corporate rightsholders. Our system is not set up to benefit society - obvious stuff, but needs to be reiterated I guess. Stop voting for these people.
I simply don't understand people who say there isn't any good music today. A music fan can spend an eternity on YouTube, just don't start your search with Quavo's B U B B L E G U M.
What kind of fools do they think we are? We've been taping stuff off of the radio since before I was born in the 70s. Now we listen to music through YouTube and "tape" off of that instead. Only in the mind of an IP lawyer is there some kind of moral distinction here. I'll do this until it is technically infeasible to do so, and I'll sleep just fine at night.
You fork the open source code and move on with life?
Almost every single Python project has a cutesy "y" in it somewhere, it's just the way it is done. Besides, Google searches are much easier when you have a unique search term.
I don't know what point you are trying to make.
Also, no one wipes my ass - I force the servants to lick it clean.
What? WHY ARE YOU STARING AT ME?
I agree - I was only addressing geantvert's comments about fuel. As you point out, there are plenty of other reasons besides efficiency that flying is more expensive.
Worse, better... these are usually compared against the averages. In reality, everything - temperature estimates, predictions, ocean levels - have pretty large error ranges. For the most part, actual measurements are falling within the error bars of the predictions.
now simply background noise
Their doom and gloom warnings have always been about the distant future, and they continue to be. This isn't about people proclaiming the end of the world is near, and then the date passes with nothing happening. The claims they have made about the near-time have actually come to pass - actual observed global warming is well within the predictions made by their models. There is no reason to doubt that they will get less accurate with time and refinement.
having been adjusted and interpolated time and again
Of course it's been adjusted and interpolated - how else to you normalize inputs from more than one source? They don't have perfect data; it's all observational science. They don't have lots of earths to experiment on, or the ability to jump back in time with proper instrumentation.
each one passes without the world ending
Provide even a single example of this.
flying requires significantly more energy than driving so this is probably going to be quite expensive.
You are probably right, though if energy is the only driver than this problem could largely disappear as the cost:capacity of batteries drops. I mean, it won't disappear because cars will also see the same benefits, so flying will always cost more than driving. But if you use fuel costs of cars today as your baseline, it's possible that flying would be cost-competitive. Certainly you can see how the premium might be worthwhile for something like express delivery, which often involves aircraft now anyway.
And they intend to test that with your life and mine.
Mostly, they'll be testing it on people who knowingly buy or get into a self-driving car. Yes, they could kill pedestrians or people in other cars, too. What can I say? Are we going to choose this moment to suddenly take a new approach to automotive innovation? If so, I hope you like paying Boeing prices for cars.
How will YOU like that when it takes longer to get anywhere?
I'll revel in the extra free time when I'm freed from the tedium of driving.
That car wasn't driverless. It was in automatic mode, but the driver wasn't paying attention. Also, not a Waymo car - it was an Uber. That's kind of like arguing that my neighbor got into an accident, therefore I am a bad driver.
No it does not imply that at all. I'm sure the taxi's destinations will be heavily constrained at first. There's been a self-driving bus going up and down the Vegas strip for months now, but that doesn't mean self-driving buses are ready to go anywhere man-driven buses go.
Of course everyone with an experience different from your own is a lying shill...
Replying to your actual point, I live just outside of Philly. People SHOULD stop at out-of-service lights, but I'd say 25-75% do not, depending on the light - especially if one of the roads is significantly larger than the other (2-lane vs 1-lane, for instance). It's breathtakingly stupid.
I've got it. I'm not claiming that self-driven cars are anywhere near ready to completely take over for humans. And even if they were, the cost is currently not economically viable.
With that said, the parameters of their operation is currently constrained. That makes the problem much simpler, and it means that potential solutions to future problems can be tested against the same dataset as the original software, and then the solution can be fanned out in stages. You cannot easily test human and infrastructure changes in such a manner - you pretty much need to wait for the field results to come in... a botched intersection design with human drivers is going to remain dangerous until money is available for capital improvements. A perennial problem like drivers blowing through intersections with dark traffic lights would probably require some kind of technological solution.
I don't think anyone is talking about letting automated taxis tackle arbitrary roads under arbitrary conditions. Baby steps.
Aren't we getting a little ahead of ourselves? :)
It's not ridiculous at all. Your assumption that the existing system is simple is ridiculous. 30,000 automotive deaths per year is a sufficiently large problem to solve such that if it were easy it would have been done by now. You are going after me for data - where's your data? We are in the same position.
We have a Switch, and I think it's great. But in my family (sample size of one) this is my observation: The kids only use the Switch when they have friends over and want to play the multiplayer games. They'd rather play on their tablets or their Chromebooks. In my 9-year-old's case, he likes Minecraft and will play it on the Switch, but he's much happier with the full Java version that he plays on the Linux partition of his Chromebook.
I think Nintendo has the unfortunate position of being the "for kids" console for a generation of kids who don't care about consoles. The portability is nice, but constrained by the battery life. Younger kids can't really handle the responsibility of carrying it around, though - and older kids already carry around a phone. I think MS and Sony's focus on more adult gamers actually makes more sense.