I've never been good at chemistry (for an engineer), but I imagine that stuff can precipitate out for various reasons. And there is all sorts of weird chemistry going on here - hydrophobic surfaces, electric fields, massive amounts of heat transfer, etc.
and on this very page numerous people are asserting, basically, that my not wanting to pay for somebody else's foo (be it education, food, healthcare, cellphone, TV) is equivalent to my wanting to deprive them of it.
Just yesterday I was arguing with another person on here that government support IS charity. I'm not sure what the heck you'd call it if not charity.
A welfare system with lower ambitions can be sustainable. Just draw a line in the sand and stick to it. The problem is that we have defined benefits and not a flat percentage of the economy allocated. This is, of course, absurd because revenues are more-or-less a flat percentage of GDP. Entitlement recipients won't like this because it means less money for them. You could go the other way and let revenues float, but you can only suck so much out of the economy before raising rates no longer raises revenue.
Well, water and dissolved minerals. Those minerals might not know that they aren't supposed to stick to the hydrophobic coating. Scale is a big problem with traditional heat exchangers.
I'm not sure I've seen that definition anywhere before. I'd love it if either revenues and/or expenditures were tied to long-term averages, but I don't have my hopes up.
He added more people to the rolls in his one term so far, than Bush did in his two terms [factcheck.org].
To be fair, Obama has presided over most of the post-crash economy.
And by that measure we are looking pretty sad [buchanan.org].
Entitlements are a huge problem, but it's not _all_ because we've become "more socialist" and have decided to increase benefits. Social Security has only been adjusted for inflation, and even then the retirement age has been moved up... we are actually LESS generous with this program. The reason it is becoming such a huge expense is that the boomers are retiring: demographic, not ideological shift.
Medicare is more of a mixed bag - Bush hugely expanded the program with subsidized prescription drugs. Obama then expanded Medicaid by decreasing the eligibility requirements as part of Obamacare. Not every state went with that plan, but it will still add millions to the roles. But a significant portion of the increase in burden has come from increasing prices in health care: demographic and ideological shift.
Programs like welfare and food stamps have not become more generous. Welfare famously went through reform in the 90s that made it less generous.
All of that being said, I am 100% on board with getting our books balanced. I believe we need to seriously reconsider our entitlement system, and we need to reform our tax system. We also need to accurately account for our liabilities - pricing in the cost of promised retirement benefits; we've been demanding that of private companies for decades - it's long past time for the government to do the same.
Demographic and economic changes can also change the ratio of entitlements to GDP without the country's "socialist" ideology changing one smidgen. An obvious example would be unemployment payouts going up in a recession.
I was referring to rooting, which I admit is a bit outside of the scope of discussion. I made the leap because I personally would never buy an Android phone that I couldn't root. I assumed this was standard amongst my fellow geeks but assumption is the mother of... something.
You're right, the first message in this thread does specifically refer to alternate markets and sideloading. I was specifically knocking iOS for lacking this ability, and would never recommend a geek have an iOS device unless there is a jailbreak. I'm not sure I would recommend an Android machine without root ability, either, even if it is more customizable than iOS in its unrooted condition.
Not that I'm aware of its use, but Android 4.2 was the first version that allows Google to remove sideloaded apps under the pretense of "malware". Our "control" on an unrooted Android device might be a little illusory.
How so? Social Security is what, 80 years old? Medicaid is from the 60s (though both Bush and Obama did expand it significantly). But the last major socialization was in the 80s when Reagan signed the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act in 1986. Obamacare does rejigger things, but doesn't do anything nearly as sweeping as requiring everyone be treated regardless of ability to pay.
Anyway, I don't see how expanding programs from 30+ years ago really qualifies as becoming a leftist state. To make such a statement ignores other forces - like corporations slowly gaining more and more independence from government. It ignores the 90s-era scaling back of welfare. It ignores the growing gap in wealth and income, which would not be a hallmark of a socialist state.
That's nice and is exactly how I installed the Amazon Store, but Nerdfest seemed to want to break out of the walls. On both iOS and Android, I've felt the need to root my device. On Android, it's the only way to have any kind of reasonable back up plan unless you are lucky enough to use only apps that save their settings online. On iOS - at least the last time I had a phone with it - you needed a jailbreak to change even simple things like the keyboard. I would not buy any of these devices without a root/jailbreak available.
I think you'll find that most class action lawsuits involve claims of fraud - mostly in the form of deliberately withholding or manipulating information to artificially boost stock prices. It is very hard to prove that someone was not acting in the best interests of stockholders unless they were stealing or something. An example someone else used her is Starbucks. When the Starbucks CEO is asked to defend the "good" but expensive things that they do, he replies that those actions are in the best interest of the stockholders because it makes the brand more valuable. That is an extremely hard thing to prove or disprove.
FreeNX is like magic compared to ssh -C, but it's decidedly not plain old X - it's conceptually the same kind of thing as RDP, but more tailored to X directly. Still - caching and compression on a wrapper to X. I wish my admin would put it on our boxes. I stopped following NX after they went closed-source, so thanks for the link to X2GO - it looks like they carry the torch for open source NX now.
Corporations are not allowed BY LAW to have morals
That's not really true... it all depends on their charter. The Red Cross is a corporation created by congress under Title 36, for example. However, as a practical matter most publicly held C corporations do prioritize stockholder value. The fact is the people who control a corporation can do whatever they want with it, so long as they do not defraud anyone.
Corporations are the wrong branch of government if you are looking for improved civil rights. Corporations are pretty much just for economic activity (and of course an unfortunate feedback loop via lobbying). We could of course change that if we liked, but still you'd have to do that through other branches of the government.
Except that both of those cases include an outright rebellion as the driving force for change. So you're actually lending the idea credit here.
Both of those rebellions were fights among the elite.
The example you gave - American South - was a rebublic, but one that disenfranchised a large percentage of its population from the political process, and in fact allowed those who perpetuated injustice against them to vote in their name. That is just as bad as a dictatorship, and has the same potential for peaceful change.
Slavery was doomed. The rest of the world had pretty much given it up, and the South was the last holdout. Even if they had won the Civil War, slavery would not have persisted forever.
They're a parasite that perverts the rest of the society to maximize their profits, and part of that is jailing as many people as possible in private for-profit prisons. Why?
So then, no, they aren't like a foreign power? I'm having trouble seeing the analogy between Wall Street and a saboteur. The comparison to a parasite makes more sense.
Economic ruin is the intended outcome, just as it would be with sending bombers to do so
Well, we agree that lack of law and order would lead to economic ruin. We may even have a common goal. But I'm not in agreement with you scorched earth methodology. If you look at the Great Depression, it did not ruin the filthy rich - or at least not enough of them to change the social order. Yet, the poor were absolutely hammered and the middle class vaporized. And at the end of it all, there was no revolution. The elite remained in control. I don't see a historical event where your plan worked out in the way you intend.
Silk Road customers are not guilty of any "crime" other than wanting to get high
Like I said, I cannot defend the drug war. Silk road customers were also criminals buying fake IDs (including the operator) - it was not limited to sin crimes, though I grant you that most of the sales were drugs. The drugs don't bother me, but the organized crime does.
and I find this accusation of contract murder extremely suspicious - it comes from the same regime that arranged for Assange rape charges and would be an extremely stupid thing for DPR to do, since it would undermine SR's reputation even if succesful.
I am not as dubious. First of all, the state of MD has nothing at all to do with Assange. Second, people involved in organized crime cannot rely on courts to resolve their disputes and so this kind of thing is the inevitable result. This is exactly why we have civil courts - so people don't resort to ghetto justice.
And you can hardly blame someone for not paying taxes when it's not possible to do so.
I'll concede that it is possible he was paying taxes on the laundered money.
Look at the context. I was talking about slavery - as it existed - in the American South. It may very well be that you can have slavery implemented without horrible crimes (though I can't imagine how this is the case and you haven't provided an example), but that is not relevant here.
. Rape outside the context of slavery is itself already a worse crime than slavery without rape. Torture outside of the context of slavery is already worse than slavery without torture.
Goodness, are we arguing about semantics? Slavery automatically includes things like rape and torture. When one refers to the horrors of slavery, they mean as it is practiced - which in the American South included rape and torture. Even individually, those are some of the worst crimes one human can commit.
This whole "unspeakably horrible crimes" piece is just political theater.
What political theater are we in? This is not Civil War Reconstruction. Rapes, murder, beatings, splitting of families, etc. were all part of slavery in the American South. This is not controversial stuff here. There was zero recourse - zero - for a slave caught in such a situation.
In reality, the atrocities and the slavery go hand in hand. I'm not sure what you have in mind with bloodless slavery, but it is a fiction in any event.
Slashdot Mirror
I've never been good at chemistry (for an engineer), but I imagine that stuff can precipitate out for various reasons. And there is all sorts of weird chemistry going on here - hydrophobic surfaces, electric fields, massive amounts of heat transfer, etc.
and on this very page numerous people are asserting, basically, that my not wanting to pay for somebody else's foo (be it education, food, healthcare, cellphone, TV) is equivalent to my wanting to deprive them of it.
Just yesterday I was arguing with another person on here that government support IS charity. I'm not sure what the heck you'd call it if not charity.
A welfare system with lower ambitions can be sustainable. Just draw a line in the sand and stick to it. The problem is that we have defined benefits and not a flat percentage of the economy allocated. This is, of course, absurd because revenues are more-or-less a flat percentage of GDP. Entitlement recipients won't like this because it means less money for them. You could go the other way and let revenues float, but you can only suck so much out of the economy before raising rates no longer raises revenue.
Well, water and dissolved minerals. Those minerals might not know that they aren't supposed to stick to the hydrophobic coating. Scale is a big problem with traditional heat exchangers.
Smaller area means less water means smaller pump means less wasted electricity means higher plant efficiency.
I'm not sure I've seen that definition anywhere before. I'd love it if either revenues and/or expenditures were tied to long-term averages, but I don't have my hopes up.
He added more people to the rolls in his one term so far, than Bush did in his two terms [factcheck.org].
To be fair, Obama has presided over most of the post-crash economy.
And by that measure we are looking pretty sad [buchanan.org].
Entitlements are a huge problem, but it's not _all_ because we've become "more socialist" and have decided to increase benefits. Social Security has only been adjusted for inflation, and even then the retirement age has been moved up... we are actually LESS generous with this program. The reason it is becoming such a huge expense is that the boomers are retiring: demographic, not ideological shift.
Medicare is more of a mixed bag - Bush hugely expanded the program with subsidized prescription drugs. Obama then expanded Medicaid by decreasing the eligibility requirements as part of Obamacare. Not every state went with that plan, but it will still add millions to the roles. But a significant portion of the increase in burden has come from increasing prices in health care: demographic and ideological shift.
Programs like welfare and food stamps have not become more generous. Welfare famously went through reform in the 90s that made it less generous.
All of that being said, I am 100% on board with getting our books balanced. I believe we need to seriously reconsider our entitlement system, and we need to reform our tax system. We also need to accurately account for our liabilities - pricing in the cost of promised retirement benefits; we've been demanding that of private companies for decades - it's long past time for the government to do the same.
Demographic and economic changes can also change the ratio of entitlements to GDP without the country's "socialist" ideology changing one smidgen. An obvious example would be unemployment payouts going up in a recession.
I was referring to rooting, which I admit is a bit outside of the scope of discussion. I made the leap because I personally would never buy an Android phone that I couldn't root. I assumed this was standard amongst my fellow geeks but assumption is the mother of... something.
You're right, the first message in this thread does specifically refer to alternate markets and sideloading. I was specifically knocking iOS for lacking this ability, and would never recommend a geek have an iOS device unless there is a jailbreak. I'm not sure I would recommend an Android machine without root ability, either, even if it is more customizable than iOS in its unrooted condition.
Not that I'm aware of its use, but Android 4.2 was the first version that allows Google to remove sideloaded apps under the pretense of "malware". Our "control" on an unrooted Android device might be a little illusory.
How so? Social Security is what, 80 years old? Medicaid is from the 60s (though both Bush and Obama did expand it significantly). But the last major socialization was in the 80s when Reagan signed the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act in 1986. Obamacare does rejigger things, but doesn't do anything nearly as sweeping as requiring everyone be treated regardless of ability to pay.
Anyway, I don't see how expanding programs from 30+ years ago really qualifies as becoming a leftist state. To make such a statement ignores other forces - like corporations slowly gaining more and more independence from government. It ignores the 90s-era scaling back of welfare. It ignores the growing gap in wealth and income, which would not be a hallmark of a socialist state.
That's nice and is exactly how I installed the Amazon Store, but Nerdfest seemed to want to break out of the walls. On both iOS and Android, I've felt the need to root my device. On Android, it's the only way to have any kind of reasonable back up plan unless you are lucky enough to use only apps that save their settings online. On iOS - at least the last time I had a phone with it - you needed a jailbreak to change even simple things like the keyboard. I would not buy any of these devices without a root/jailbreak available.
Noticed the 5S and 5C aren't on your list yet, Chucky.
I think you'll find that most class action lawsuits involve claims of fraud - mostly in the form of deliberately withholding or manipulating information to artificially boost stock prices. It is very hard to prove that someone was not acting in the best interests of stockholders unless they were stealing or something. An example someone else used her is Starbucks. When the Starbucks CEO is asked to defend the "good" but expensive things that they do, he replies that those actions are in the best interest of the stockholders because it makes the brand more valuable. That is an extremely hard thing to prove or disprove.
FreeNX is like magic compared to ssh -C, but it's decidedly not plain old X - it's conceptually the same kind of thing as RDP, but more tailored to X directly. Still - caching and compression on a wrapper to X. I wish my admin would put it on our boxes. I stopped following NX after they went closed-source, so thanks for the link to X2GO - it looks like they carry the torch for open source NX now.
Yeah, but then there's reality. The list of devices without this requirement is small and insufficient IMHO.
iOS should be off most geeks' list until there is a jailbreak.
Corporations are not allowed BY LAW to have morals
That's not really true... it all depends on their charter. The Red Cross is a corporation created by congress under Title 36, for example. However, as a practical matter most publicly held C corporations do prioritize stockholder value. The fact is the people who control a corporation can do whatever they want with it, so long as they do not defraud anyone.
Corporations are the wrong branch of government if you are looking for improved civil rights. Corporations are pretty much just for economic activity (and of course an unfortunate feedback loop via lobbying). We could of course change that if we liked, but still you'd have to do that through other branches of the government.
I re-read that and realized it is not clear that I'm being cynical with the first paragraph. That was meant to be tongue in cheek.
Unless you'd argue that war *is* a horrible crime?
Only for the loser. For the winner it is glorious and inspiring. It's one of man's most vexing talents.
The difference is war has two sides. When one side loses, it's no longer war. If it continues at that point, it is oppression, not war.
Except that both of those cases include an outright rebellion as the driving force for change. So you're actually lending the idea credit here.
Both of those rebellions were fights among the elite.
The example you gave - American South - was a rebublic, but one that disenfranchised a large percentage of its population from the political process, and in fact allowed those who perpetuated injustice against them to vote in their name. That is just as bad as a dictatorship, and has the same potential for peaceful change.
Slavery was doomed. The rest of the world had pretty much given it up, and the South was the last holdout. Even if they had won the Civil War, slavery would not have persisted forever.
They're a parasite that perverts the rest of the society to maximize their profits, and part of that is jailing as many people as possible in private for-profit prisons. Why?
So then, no, they aren't like a foreign power? I'm having trouble seeing the analogy between Wall Street and a saboteur. The comparison to a parasite makes more sense.
Economic ruin is the intended outcome, just as it would be with sending bombers to do so
Well, we agree that lack of law and order would lead to economic ruin. We may even have a common goal. But I'm not in agreement with you scorched earth methodology. If you look at the Great Depression, it did not ruin the filthy rich - or at least not enough of them to change the social order. Yet, the poor were absolutely hammered and the middle class vaporized. And at the end of it all, there was no revolution. The elite remained in control. I don't see a historical event where your plan worked out in the way you intend.
Silk Road customers are not guilty of any "crime" other than wanting to get high
Like I said, I cannot defend the drug war. Silk road customers were also criminals buying fake IDs (including the operator) - it was not limited to sin crimes, though I grant you that most of the sales were drugs. The drugs don't bother me, but the organized crime does.
and I find this accusation of contract murder extremely suspicious - it comes from the same regime that arranged for Assange rape charges and would be an extremely stupid thing for DPR to do, since it would undermine SR's reputation even if succesful.
I am not as dubious. First of all, the state of MD has nothing at all to do with Assange. Second, people involved in organized crime cannot rely on courts to resolve their disputes and so this kind of thing is the inevitable result. This is exactly why we have civil courts - so people don't resort to ghetto justice.
And you can hardly blame someone for not paying taxes when it's not possible to do so.
I'll concede that it is possible he was paying taxes on the laundered money.
No. It doesn't *automatically* include all that.
Look at the context. I was talking about slavery - as it existed - in the American South. It may very well be that you can have slavery implemented without horrible crimes (though I can't imagine how this is the case and you haven't provided an example), but that is not relevant here.
. Rape outside the context of slavery is itself already a worse crime than slavery without rape. Torture outside of the context of slavery is already worse than slavery without torture.
Goodness, are we arguing about semantics? Slavery automatically includes things like rape and torture. When one refers to the horrors of slavery, they mean as it is practiced - which in the American South included rape and torture. Even individually, those are some of the worst crimes one human can commit.
This whole "unspeakably horrible crimes" piece is just political theater.
What political theater are we in? This is not Civil War Reconstruction. Rapes, murder, beatings, splitting of families, etc. were all part of slavery in the American South. This is not controversial stuff here. There was zero recourse - zero - for a slave caught in such a situation.
In reality, the atrocities and the slavery go hand in hand. I'm not sure what you have in mind with bloodless slavery, but it is a fiction in any event.