Correct. Our "civil service" (not a common term) is - for the most part - just an extension of the Executive Branch. While a lot of the big shots need to be confirmed by congress, it still tends to be very political. The US executive bureaucracy is massive, though, so most federal employees are somewhat insulated from the shuffling of the bosses.
While there is some truth to that, this "purpose built" chip's purpose is to run an open-source AI language. So this is more interesting than a typical custom ASIC.
If you don't have a smart phone, they have kiosks:
For those who don’t have smartphones, Uber will provide iPads in locations across town, including the town hall, recreation centre, library and high school.
I don't know where you live, but here in Philly my company has 16 open reqs for various engineering positions and we are handing out bounties for resumes and referrals.
We don't have an "Alamo", but we do have a "Movie Tavern". The food isn't going to win any awards, but it's of chain quality (TGI Fridays, Chiles, etc). More importantly, they have draft beer. The seats are these big, cushy recliners with massive amounts of space between them. Honestly I never noticed sounds of people around me - I'll try to pay more attention. I suspect the increased distance plus the high volume of the movie makes it less noticeable. Not sure a burger would be louder than popcorn in any case.
Yes, the banks get a 6% dividend, but in exchange they need to front 3% of their assets. They can't use these assets to do anything else - they can't even use it for collateral.
The banks that "own" the fed collectively hold a minority interest. They do get to elect the board of directors of each regional bank - but the President gets to appoint the Board of Governors which ultimately sets all policy.
Yes, the fed pays out interest on deposits. So does your bank when you deposit money there. The government even guarantees your deposits when held in private banks. I'm not sure what you are getting at?
And it operates in the best interest of banks? Well, yeah - that's the point - we all benefit from a stable banking system with low, predictable inflation.
You are digging into the weeds of how the fed is run and cherry picking only the parts that suit your argument that it is a "private" entity, when in fact it is completely controlled by the US government. By necessity it has to interface with private banks, and the wonky mechanics of the somewhat novel organizational structure should not be confused with "control". The only way you can say the Fed is "private" is by using the word "private" in a way that would not be meaningful to anyone in everyday conversation.
Yes, if you dive deeply enough you can go crazy. For all intents and purposes, they are not private by any normal usage of the word "private". If you want to get really into the weeds, are any corporations that exist through government charter really "private"? You could make a pretty good argument that all charters are extensions of the government. Actually, it's that angle that pisses me off when those charters are then allowed to lobby the government. For this reason, I voted for Sanders despite his apparent inability to grasp basic economics.
I'm not going to read the report, but if the best piece of information in it is what was captured by the summary, then I'll wear the idiot badge proudly. Perhaps the summary writer is a moron and the report has a lot of excellent information.
No, if the study is as described in the summary, it is that stupid. They adjusted for one of the largest factors (education) and so we are left with people who, for whatever reason, had to borrow money and came out with a debt load. It could be that they weren't as rich to start. It could be that they weren't good enough to get academic scholarships. Whatever the reason, they have less money to spend and are probably disadvantaged in other ways. If you correct for the ways in which they are disadvantaged (income level and the like), the study becomes even more pointless as the only remaining variable is debt load. That particular nugget of information is a complete waste of all of our time. Now, if this just happened to be what a retarded Slashdot submission pulled out of a larger study (which could very well be the case), then my comments are way off base. But I'm not going to RTFA.
Then collect some data worth examining. "People with debt have less money to spend than people without debt, adjusting for other factors" is straight-up retarded.
A "private corporation" that has a single stockholder (the government) and returns all profit to the federal treasury. Glad you cleared that up for me.
I'm sorry, but that "study" is ridiculous and retarded. Adjust everyone for all variables except "debt" and then find that they have less buying power. Brilliant. I hope these are highly-paid top-notch economists, and that they had to attend a conference to present their findings.
the New York Fed took a careful look at the relationship between debt and homeownership. For people aged 30 to 36, the analysis shows having any student debt significantly hurts your chances of buying a home, compared to college graduates with no debt.
I'm glad public salaries were paid to come up with that study.
That's not "the biggest problem". In fact, it's not really much of a problem at all. You don't end up with "salt", you end up with water that has a higher salinity than the input water. You keep enough new salty or brackish water moving through the input side to dilute the effect of pulling water out. Compared to the amount of water moving around in the tides, the desalinization plant is small potatoes. Compared to the amount of water removed from the oceans by evaporation, it is insignificant.
Now perhaps you could argue that it would affect shallow inland seas and the like (Arabian Gulf), but probably a lot less so than the damming of rivers to capture their fresh water.
I think everything you just said jibes very well with his statement. He's basically guaranteeing 500 years, and then saying it could be as high as 1000. That's nearly parallel to your example of a bridge being guaranteed up to a rated weight limit, but in reality the upper bound is not known. As for duration, I'm sure you could design a bridge that would last 500 years if it were stored in a hermetically sealed container deep in a dry cavern.
I think that is the main thrust of this whole effort - creating a safe controlled space. Plus, if you notice, he's given himself an enormous amount of wiggle room, basically 750 years, give or take 250.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure you can find anything available on Netflix in the usual areas at 1080 or 720p. At some point the signal has to meet your analog eyeballs.
I can't help but notice that you are using sciency language to describe a known phenomenon. That's great, and it's why we can rate a bridge without running heavier and heavier cars over it until it fails.
Yes, science is the key word. It allows you to make predictions about materials. In my example, obviously if the conditions change, then so will the corrosion rate of the iron. And here is the important bit - in a predictable way. If you tell me what the conditions are, I can make a pretty good swag at how long the iron will last.
If you fully understand the behavior of a material, you should be able to give a pretty good swag at it's lifetime. Nothing magical occurs, the material loses an average of xxx molecular connections upon exposure to xxx photons, or xxx heat, or whatever. You can test using various acceleration environments and extrapolate based on what you learn. If half of an iron bar rusts out over a month, you don't need to wait another month to know that the rest of it will rust away in a month.
It sounds like they are proposing a robot that is not up to the standards you have set. Half of this proposal involves ways to get around safety regulations. If you've flown big UAVs, you must be talking military, and yeah, these aren't going to meet your standards. Like I said, if they can't figure out the weather, then this thing is dead on arrival - presumably they've spent more time thinking about it than you or I.
Slashdot Mirror
Correct. Our "civil service" (not a common term) is - for the most part - just an extension of the Executive Branch. While a lot of the big shots need to be confirmed by congress, it still tends to be very political. The US executive bureaucracy is massive, though, so most federal employees are somewhat insulated from the shuffling of the bosses.
While there is some truth to that, this "purpose built" chip's purpose is to run an open-source AI language. So this is more interesting than a typical custom ASIC.
If you don't have a smart phone, they have kiosks:
I don't know where you live, but here in Philly my company has 16 open reqs for various engineering positions and we are handing out bounties for resumes and referrals.
Based on the summary, yes. Did you read it or are you just casting stones?
We don't have an "Alamo", but we do have a "Movie Tavern". The food isn't going to win any awards, but it's of chain quality (TGI Fridays, Chiles, etc). More importantly, they have draft beer. The seats are these big, cushy recliners with massive amounts of space between them. Honestly I never noticed sounds of people around me - I'll try to pay more attention. I suspect the increased distance plus the high volume of the movie makes it less noticeable. Not sure a burger would be louder than popcorn in any case.
Yes, the banks get a 6% dividend, but in exchange they need to front 3% of their assets. They can't use these assets to do anything else - they can't even use it for collateral.
The banks that "own" the fed collectively hold a minority interest. They do get to elect the board of directors of each regional bank - but the President gets to appoint the Board of Governors which ultimately sets all policy.
Yes, the fed pays out interest on deposits. So does your bank when you deposit money there. The government even guarantees your deposits when held in private banks. I'm not sure what you are getting at?
And it operates in the best interest of banks? Well, yeah - that's the point - we all benefit from a stable banking system with low, predictable inflation.
You are digging into the weeds of how the fed is run and cherry picking only the parts that suit your argument that it is a "private" entity, when in fact it is completely controlled by the US government. By necessity it has to interface with private banks, and the wonky mechanics of the somewhat novel organizational structure should not be confused with "control". The only way you can say the Fed is "private" is by using the word "private" in a way that would not be meaningful to anyone in everyday conversation.
This depends on the movie. A crapshow like "Catwoman" is only redeemed by watching it in a ghetto theater.
Yes, if you dive deeply enough you can go crazy. For all intents and purposes, they are not private by any normal usage of the word "private". If you want to get really into the weeds, are any corporations that exist through government charter really "private"? You could make a pretty good argument that all charters are extensions of the government. Actually, it's that angle that pisses me off when those charters are then allowed to lobby the government. For this reason, I voted for Sanders despite his apparent inability to grasp basic economics.
I'm not going to read the report, but if the best piece of information in it is what was captured by the summary, then I'll wear the idiot badge proudly. Perhaps the summary writer is a moron and the report has a lot of excellent information.
Wanna bet that shiny quarter that the effect is roughly proportional to the size of the debt load??? :)
Thank God someone else gets it.
No, if the study is as described in the summary, it is that stupid. They adjusted for one of the largest factors (education) and so we are left with people who, for whatever reason, had to borrow money and came out with a debt load. It could be that they weren't as rich to start. It could be that they weren't good enough to get academic scholarships. Whatever the reason, they have less money to spend and are probably disadvantaged in other ways. If you correct for the ways in which they are disadvantaged (income level and the like), the study becomes even more pointless as the only remaining variable is debt load. That particular nugget of information is a complete waste of all of our time. Now, if this just happened to be what a retarded Slashdot submission pulled out of a larger study (which could very well be the case), then my comments are way off base. But I'm not going to RTFA.
Then collect some data worth examining. "People with debt have less money to spend than people without debt, adjusting for other factors" is straight-up retarded.
A "private corporation" that has a single stockholder (the government) and returns all profit to the federal treasury. Glad you cleared that up for me.
I'm sorry, but that "study" is ridiculous and retarded. Adjust everyone for all variables except "debt" and then find that they have less buying power. Brilliant. I hope these are highly-paid top-notch economists, and that they had to attend a conference to present their findings.
the New York Fed took a careful look at the relationship between debt and homeownership. For people aged 30 to 36, the analysis shows having any student debt significantly hurts your chances of buying a home, compared to college graduates with no debt.
I'm glad public salaries were paid to come up with that study.
That's not "the biggest problem". In fact, it's not really much of a problem at all. You don't end up with "salt", you end up with water that has a higher salinity than the input water. You keep enough new salty or brackish water moving through the input side to dilute the effect of pulling water out. Compared to the amount of water moving around in the tides, the desalinization plant is small potatoes. Compared to the amount of water removed from the oceans by evaporation, it is insignificant.
Now perhaps you could argue that it would affect shallow inland seas and the like (Arabian Gulf), but probably a lot less so than the damming of rivers to capture their fresh water.
I think everything you just said jibes very well with his statement. He's basically guaranteeing 500 years, and then saying it could be as high as 1000. That's nearly parallel to your example of a bridge being guaranteed up to a rated weight limit, but in reality the upper bound is not known. As for duration, I'm sure you could design a bridge that would last 500 years if it were stored in a hermetically sealed container deep in a dry cavern.
I think that is the main thrust of this whole effort - creating a safe controlled space. Plus, if you notice, he's given himself an enormous amount of wiggle room, basically 750 years, give or take 250.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure you can find anything available on Netflix in the usual areas at 1080 or 720p. At some point the signal has to meet your analog eyeballs.
I can't help but notice that you are using sciency language to describe a known phenomenon. That's great, and it's why we can rate a bridge without running heavier and heavier cars over it until it fails.
Yes, science is the key word. It allows you to make predictions about materials. In my example, obviously if the conditions change, then so will the corrosion rate of the iron. And here is the important bit - in a predictable way. If you tell me what the conditions are, I can make a pretty good swag at how long the iron will last.
If you fully understand the behavior of a material, you should be able to give a pretty good swag at it's lifetime. Nothing magical occurs, the material loses an average of xxx molecular connections upon exposure to xxx photons, or xxx heat, or whatever. You can test using various acceleration environments and extrapolate based on what you learn. If half of an iron bar rusts out over a month, you don't need to wait another month to know that the rest of it will rust away in a month.
It sounds like they are proposing a robot that is not up to the standards you have set. Half of this proposal involves ways to get around safety regulations. If you've flown big UAVs, you must be talking military, and yeah, these aren't going to meet your standards. Like I said, if they can't figure out the weather, then this thing is dead on arrival - presumably they've spent more time thinking about it than you or I.