Thanks to rent control, I'm paying $300 per month less than market rate.
Market distortions can make it financially disastrous to move, as compared to staying in the same place.
Rent control is one.
Another is, for homeowners, is Proposition 13 in California (and similar laws in some other states). Think of it as "rent control on taxes", designed to keep the skyrocketing housing prices from driving people out of their homes:
- Stay at the old place - get taxed on the price of the house when it was bought (or Prop 13 went into effect) plus a small inflation adjustment.
- Sell it and buy a new house in CA (or the same state etc.) - get taxed on the new house's CURRENT price, plus a small inflation adjustment - forever forward. Then there's being taxed on the hyperinflated price of the house you sold as if it were a lump sum of income, unless you take the once-in-a-lifetime exemption or one of the other income tax rules for switching houses without being bankrupted. And the new mortgage is at the current rates, too, and on a much pricier home.
Moving used to be much less of a financial hit than it is now.
Spying on the population was a big driver behind the THIRD amendment:
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
While forcing the colonists to provide housing and upkeep for the soldiers sent to oppress them was an economic issue, there was more to it than that.
A soldier "quartered" in a colonist's house also served as a spy for the crown and its army. He eavesdropped on the conversations of the family and visiting friends. He had the opportunity to view their records when they weren't home (or even if they were). He reported anything suspicious to his unit. His presence inhibited getting together with others to hold private discussions, especially about opposing (by protest or otherwise) anything the government was doing. He was a continuous walking search, fed and housed by the people he was investigating.
It seems to me that law-enforcement and intelligence agency spyware, such as keyloggers and various data exfiltration tools, is EXACTLY the digital equivalent: It is a digital agent that "lives" in the home or office of the target. It consums the target's resources (disk space, CPU cycles network bandwidth) to support itself. It spies spying on the activities and "papers" of the target, reporting anything suspicious (or anything, actually) back to its commander, to be used as evidence and/or to trigger an arrest or other attack. It is ready, at a moment's notice, to forcefully interfere with, destroy, or corrupt the target's facilities or send forged messages from him.
Spyware is EXACTLY one of the most egregious acts (one of the "Intolerable Acts") that sparked the American Revolution. I'd love to see the Third brought back out of the doldrums and used against these "digital soldiers" the government is "quartering" inside our personal and private computing devices.
Last year I spent close on $3,000 in the USA. This year, I'm going to Sri Lanka.
Enjoy your trip.
Meanwhile, Trump will just have ICE deport three more illegal immigrant households, more than making up for the money you might have spent (even if you'd been giving it straight to the US taxpayers, rather than mostly to the megacorps that exploit them.)
With "buy" using a lowercase "b", it better indicates that "Snap" and "Snap Interactive" are two different entities. Not as good as the quotation marks I just used (which I've no frigging idea if that is a grammatically-acceptable use), but better than it is now.
Officially grammatical or not, putting the quotes around the two company names is how I'd have done it. It nicely clarifies the boundaries of the multiple-word names, making the meaning of the sentence obvious.
Because it isn't really illegeal becasue they changed the law after peoples sstarted doing it that's ENTRAPMENT
You're thinking of "ex post facto" - making an act illegal after it takes place.
I think that would apply to, at least, any rentals that were in progress when the law came into effect. New rentals might be a different matter.
This law amounts to a zoning/land-use law change. If the rentals were actually legal under the previous laws, they might remain legal as a "non-conforming use", despite the new law, until the property is sold to a new owner.
Also: If the new law has the effect of substantially reducing the property's value to its owner, the owner might be able to sue the city for the difference, under the Fifth Amendment's "takings" clause and the doctrine of "partial taking".
But IANAL and even if I were I'm not a New Yorker.
Why hundreds of people were protesting isn't some kind of unsolved mystery that demands or even justifies law enforcement digging through the last decade of electronic personal data in order to "crack" the case.... The root of the issue is the bullshit justification that a search warrant of this kind was even authorized.
What's that got to do with finding evidence for intent and/or conspiracy? Both are legitimate pieces of evidence to search for, in a place that is legitimate to search with a warrant, and such warrants may be properly granted if probable cause exists.
A group of identically masked "protesters" working together to commit felony assault and arson is just about the definition of "probable cause" for suspecting conspiracy and intent, and legitimately searching for evidence to nail the conviction.
"Begging the question" is almost always used incorrectly...
Unlike, for instance, French (a "dead language spoken by millions"), which has a rule-making body with the force of law that can fine you (in some jurisdictions) for saying "hamburger" in an otherwise French sentence, American English is a living language.
That means what is "correct" is what the bulk of the speakers actually say. It changes from time to time. This is one of those times and one of those changes.
It is also a Germanic language, not a Romance language.
It's similar to the prohibition on ending a sentence with a preposition (which is a rule from Latin which academics keep trying to impose on English speakers, though the grammatical form always was legitimate in English and other Germanic languages). "Begging the Question" began as a mistranslation of a Latin phrase (attributed to Aristotle) that was incorporated as a technical term (for a particular logical fallacy) into a specialized academic vocabulary. But the phrase has ALSO come to be used for other things (which actually match the string of words more closely).
Some academics claim their subculture's first use makes it the only "correct" meaning of the phrase. But like other words and phrases in English, the common usage defines the (set of) "correct" meaning(s).
Setting cars on fire, assaulting people, and breaking windows isn't "protesting."
Well, actually it can be a "protesting" tactic.
But being an "act of protest" doesn't make it any less a violent criminal act, or any less subject to prosecution and criminal sanctions.
It also doesn't make planning to do it in a group any less a felonious conspiracy.
= = = =
I'm waiting with bated breath for the new administration to follow the money back to Soros (busting people all the way along the trail) and find enough evidence to bust him as the kingpin of a criminal conspiracy. Wouldn't THAT cause consternation.
That's not the problem. It's the time to process all those files every time you run commands like checkout status diff etc.
Are YOU really having speed issues now?
If not, don't expect to as your project grows, either. As long as the Moore's law variants apply and you don't add developers at an exponential rate, the machines will improve exponentially, wihch is faster than the repository grows. (Even if you DO add developers exponentially the output per developers drops off quickly.)
If you ARE having trouble I'd bet you didn't partition your repositories at project, application/subsystem, or API boundaries Git works fine if you have, say, one repository for the compiler support / standard library or vendor's SDK, another for your project's application, maybe a third for your-stuff specific libraries shared among multiple projects. You glue them together in the makefile common inclusions.
If you aren't crossing a repository boundary where you have separate components that have to interact across distinct release versions, you did something wrong. Even diverge-converge approaches won't give you a good way to test across those version combinations or protect you from change-storms unrelated to YOUR project - not just with git, but with any SCCS I'm familiar with. (And I've been programming - and/or designing digital hardware - for a living since computers were just switching from using tubes.)
The whole point of git is that you have identical copy on your machine. Why take away git's biggest advantage?
Because it's biggest advantage is also one of it's greatest inefficiencies and frankly on a large project chances are you may not need it all. The whole point is you have an identical copy on your machine of what you're working on
So buy a bigger disk. They're cheap.
Why did they do it? It's obvious: it's the bait on the hook to get you to break git and your open source projects (even CURRENT ones) that compete with them.
By keeping you from having a full copy of the repository, they break git: If there are files that you didn't use in recent checkouts, they're not stored locally or not brought up to date when you pull. If something goes wrong externally - like loss or corruption at a cloud site (such as the recent lost-update debacle) you have no non-microsoft-git-internals-expert way to recover - maybe no way to recover at all.
You lose the ability to work offline. You lose the ability to look at history, or parts of the repository you haven't been to yet, without being back on line to a working and trustworthy external server, and so on.
My understanding is that Executive Orders can only be made for powers either bequeathed to the President via the Constitution, or where Congress has granted the Executive branch those powers via legislation.
We are in total agreement there - that this is the theory,
In practice the President orders as he will, limited only by his conscience (if any), the courts, and (in extremis) behavior so egregious that his underlings would mutiny or Congress would impeach. Essentially that means the courts, which have explicit rules and policies in place to minimize such interference.
LBJ called politics "The Art of the Possible". I've always read that to mean "Everything I Can Get Away With".
In the case of immigration, it is Congress who decides the parameters of who enters the country, but it is the Executive's job to interpret and enforce immigration law.
I note that the "immigration problems" we are currently having stem from various Presidents' choices to NOT enforce immigration law (and Obama's choice to write Executive Orders purporting to grant non-Congressionally-authorized extra immigration waivers and handle incoming illegal immigrants in a way that destroys the paper trail necessary to find and deport them). Trump can keep most of his immigration promises just by switching to vigorously enforcing the laws as written and building the (already Congressionally Mandated and partially funded) wall.
For the rest, Congress, post 9/11, wrote the President a number of anti-terrorism blank checks. I'd be surprised if there wasn't at least one that could be read to authorize his actions. If he can't find or stretch one to fit, THEN he can try to justify it from his Constitutional Powers.
Of course, if it ever DOES come to court, Trump's attorneys can throw ALL the claims at the bench simultaneously. Only one needs to stick.
I wonder how many of these executive orders will stand up to judicial scrutiny? A lot fewer than have/will be made I suspect.
Ordering the drafting of one, checking it when it's done, sending it back for revision if necessary, and signing it, takes what? A quarter day? That means he can do several a DAY and keep it up as long as he's in office. (He'd need to, even if the courts don't strike even one. There are SO MANY things to shut down and at most he has less than three thousand days to do it - and all the OTHER presidential work as well.) Cost is trivial, since the manpower is already on staff and paid for by government funds.
Pushing opposition to an order's implementation, into and through court, takes months to years. (Again, the government pays for Trump's side, this time to push back.) There's no guarantee it will work, or that it will affect more than a small part of the order if it does work.
For a historic example of how this can work, see how F.D.R. used it to create The New Deal, including its welfare state and fascist control of industry. (The latter mostly got knocked down in court, the former is still with us - all grown up and entrenched.)
Or look at what Obama did with his "Pen and Phone" and a Democratic Party dominated Congress.
Then consider that, in general, (and in contrast to neocon claims,) it's easier to break something than to build it.
This site does does seem to be getting more political and less technical in the choice of stories being put forward.
It's not just here. It's everywhere. For instance:
- I run into these arguments on a computer experts mailing list.
- I see them keep popping up on an alternative energy BBS - bringing the board operators out to repeatedly admonish the posters about the "no political discussions" rule.
- (I'd probably see them in more places but I've been sick as a dog this last week.)
- My wife sees them on a num ber of mailing lists, facebook friends groups, and so on that she's on, including a chicken-breeder's discussion group(!)
As I read it:
- The left-wing movement currently called things like "progressivism" has, for generations, infiltrated power-base organizations and used social pressure to turn their members into group-think clones and the organizations into tools for further expansion and for implementation of their policies. They've just received their first major setback in half a century. Their carefully constructed mechanisms, which they thought were about to give them an unbreakable lock on power, either massively failed to perform or are going onto the chopping block with Trump wieldng the axe. So they are doubling down, frantically applying their tactics, redoubled, in every venu they can still access;
- Their non-members (especially those in rural and/or "fly-over" locations, after decades of being gaslighted, just received a massive sanity-check and became connected with many others who think like them. Further, they saw the other side exposed as what they'd consider evil and corrupt - first by the leaks, then by the tantrum after the loss. With this for armor, they are resisting social-pressure attacks rather than backing down.
Now, as to Congress, well I'm assuming here that these executive orders are based on powers bequeathed to the President by Congress, in which case if Congress doesn't like how Trump is using the powers that have been been granted to him by legislation, then they can amend or repeal any said legislation,...
Close. But let me pick a small, but inprotant, nitl
The Presiden't powers don't come from the Congress. The President's powers come from the Constitution. Some of them do amount to some component of "implementing the laws as passed by Congress". But not all of them are of that form; The others aren't generally subject to congress adding a "Do it this way / don't do it that way" prescription, and even their ability to specify HOW he executes that laws that they DID pass is limited.
The President is head of the Executive branch of the government - one of three co-equal branches. Rule of thumb: If ONE of the branches gets out of hand, it takes BOTH of the other two to override it - and it's a major boat-rocker to do so. When two branches disagree and the third sits it out, the first two each get to run their branches' things their own way.
Having said that: Much of the current over-power of the President and the Executive Branch IS the result of Congress shirking their own hard decisions by handing some of their OWN legislative power off to the Executive, in such forms as rule-making and war-powers preauthorizations. Those do act much as you describe. And they've been used to create the monumental overweening bureaucracy and set of "administrative rules" that Trump is now trying to dismantle, using the same mechanisms as were used to create it.
Trump inherited Obama's "Pen and Phone". The executive order is the writing of the pen. Presidents before him created a set of juggernauts. Trump gets to disassemble them (much to the joy of his supporters) to his heart's content - at least until the Congress takes its own delegated power back. As you point out that's not likely to happen any time soon (and his party has the majority in both houses for the next two years).
Meanwhile, the courts alone are limited in what they can do to counter him, both by the Constitution and their own rules of deferring to the executive unless there's good reason not to, avoiding an override of a law or executive action if a case can be decided on some other basis, limiting the scope of the laws or actions overridden to the minimum needed to decide a case, and not accepting a case for a ruing unless the prayug party is suffering real harm from the law or action being complained about. Further, the top court is tied 4 conservative 4 liberal, and Trump gets to appoint the ninth.
So I would expect Trump to rapidly and selectively smash away. (There's so MANY of these structures to smash, and so little time in no more than two Presidential terms.) And if Congress DOES try to take its power back before he leaves office, tweet about being thrown into briar patches and ROTFLMAO.
... "Wouldn't it be super weird if you jiggled the Jell-O and found that somehow it responded at a different period?" said Yao.
Not at all:
- If the jello jiggles at 2 Hz and you tap it every half-second, It's not hard at all to get it to dance indefinitely at four times the rate, one quarter the period, of the periodic stimulus. Ditto a high-Q resonator - like a bell. Hit it at the corresponding phase every Nth cycle, often enough that it doesn't decay appreciably, and the bell will appear to ring merrily at N times the frequency of the stimulus, forever.
- Getting something to react periodically at HALF, or 1/Nth, the rate of the stimulus, is a bit more difficult but still not hard. With Jello, for instance, you'd have to hit it in a way that would encourage it to continue in it's way in either half-cycle. Imagine a Jello tower leaning right and left, and tapping its base upward to encourage it to lean more just as it passes the middle going in either direction. That would keep it pumped up.
There are lots of ways to get that latter to work, even without a period tuned to a natural frequency of the thing being provoked:
- A flip-flop divide by two counter. Clock once, changes state. Clock again, changes back to the other state.
- A platform with a slinky in the bottom of one end of an upside-down U-shaped tube. Thump the platform up, and the slinky loops into the other leg of the U. Mechanical flip-flop.
- A wooden platform with, say, a surface feature consisting of a ring of five similar segments shaped so that, if you put a bead in the low spot of one segment, a thump makes it jump to and settle into the next segment around the loop. Put one (or some combination of up to five identical or distinguished - like by color - beads, into the low spots and the pattern of beads moves around among different configurations, returning to starting point every fifth stimulus.
I could go on for hours.
The point is that it may not be immediately obvious, but there's nothing "new physics" about a system stimulated at one rate and going through a set of state transitions that repeats periodicly, to achieve a "wiggle" of an integer fraction of the stimulus.
= = = =
And I suspect that is what is happening here. As I read it, a real time crystal would oscillate without any external stimulus.
It looks to me that, in trying to create their "time crystal", they oversimplified by making a small part of a much larger (perhaps infinite) candidate and using the lasers to simulate the boundary conditions from its connection with the rest of the candidate structure. In doing so they risk creating, instead, something like the divide-by-N situations I described above, with the boundary condition simulator providing the clock for the counter.
Call me when they get one to run without any lasers (or other external pump), say by bending their "conga line" into a circle or folding it into a polygon.
The two lasers that were periodically nudging the ytterbium atoms were producing a repetition in the system at twice the period of the nudges, something that couldn't occur in a normal system. When they're saying 'twice the period of the nudges', do they mean twice the frequency of the nudges, or twice the duration of the nudges?
I read it as twice the period. Continuing with the rest of the section you quoted:
"Wouldn't it be super weird if you jiggled the Jell-O and found that somehow it responded at a different period?" said Yao.
Not at all:
- If the jello jiggles at 2 Hz and you tap it every half-second, It's not hard at all to get it to dance indefinitely at four times the rate, one quarter the period, of the periodic stimulus. Ditto a high-Q resonator - like a bell. Hit it at the corresponding phase every Nth cycle, often enough that it doesn't
IMHO: A USB device that depends on its power source to limit its input current, and can be damaged by a host that is willing to deliver more current that it requested, is defective by design.
Ditto any supply (such as a laptop's USB port) that can be damaged by an excessive load - all the way down to a short to ground. Current limiters are not that costly, and one smart enough to negotiate higher limits involves enough custom silicon that it can also be designed to enforce the higher limits in a self-protecting manner, as well.
Protecting itself from being driven by an out-of-range voltage is another issue. But any USB host port at any level of the spec SHOULD be able to handle any voltage between zero and +5 on any of the non-ground pins, and any resistance - down to zero - to the ground pin. Perhaps not according to the standard, but certainly according to reasonable engineering practice.
What bugs me about USB power is that the negotation for more than a tenth-amp (half-watt) takes place partly on the data lines. That means they need to be connected between the peripheral and the source.
So any charger device for a power-hungry gadget (such as a smartphone) will have a full four-wire connection and have the opportunity to attempt to exploit any USB port vulnerabilities of the device. Making a "condom" adapter to only connect the +5 and ground wires will normally provide reduce performance (if it works at all). Vetting one that does connect to the data lines on both sides is difficult - both to insure that it does what's intended and doesn't have a backdoor, and that it, itself, isn't such an attacking device.
Given that Russian intelligence was already caught handing out phone-cracking "USB chargers" to many countries' high officials at an international conference, the threat not just a hypothetical.
(Note that some powered hubs just tie +5 and ground to the supply, rather than try to negotiate and enforce per-port power limits, too.)
IMHO: A USB device that depends on its power source to limit its input current, and can be damaged by a host that is willing to deliver more current that it requested, is defective by design. The negotiation and enforcement is for the benefit of the power source (for instance, a laptop trying to protect its battery life).
Russia disliked Clinton but she was competent and her presidency would not have resulted in a u.s./russia nuclear war.
Given that the policies and actions she and Obama implemented were the bulk of what led to the rise of ISIS (just to name ONE global-level failure that MIGHT YET continue to escalate into global thermonuclear war), I find it difficult to agree with your assertion.
On the other hand President Trump just lost all the senior state department officials.
Yay! No more globalist neocons. Trump (or his delegates) gets to fill those important positions as soon as suitable people are identified to hold the positions, rather than first going through a lengthy stage of sorting out and extracting those who oppose his policies - while they fight tooth-and-nail to sabotage the implementation of his foreign policy.
President Trump is a huge narcissist and most of his cabinet choices are not chosen for competency.
President Trump has a long track record of building a multibillion dollar commercial organization - by setting policies and picking people who can implement them successfully (or talk him into allowing appropriate changes if necessary). I'd expect him to make appropriate choices to do the corresponding thing in running the executive branch.
And I'd be inclined to defer to his expertise in this, especially when it comes to deciding what qualities are necessary for each position. Even if it looks to ME like he's making a bad choice, I wouldn't trust either my contrary opinion or that of even alleged experts. Others who have had similar success might be able to give an informed critique, but even their statements would be suspect, as people in such positions normally don't make a boat-rocking public statement unless there's something in it for them that outweighs the costs.
President Trump is emotionally erratic, rash and impulsive.
As compared to Hillary? ROFL! As far as I can see, to the extent Hillary is more stable, it's in the execution of her program to amass as much under-the-table funding as possible. I'd rather foreign policy be operated by an independently-wealthy resort hotel magnate than as a for-profit enterprise.
Also: The MAD doctrine of the Cold War is STILL part of holding off World War III. For that to work, the president has to look JUST crazy and volatile enough that he might actually "push the button" if provoked too hard - but sane enough to make deals and stick to them. The track record in business - and as the author of "The Art of the Deal" - has the latter covered. But to cover the former he needs to be VERY CAREFUL to keep looking just a little erratic and crazy.
Of course, the nuclear family of the 1950s had: a 1200 (not 2200) sqft house, formica (not granite) counters,...
But the house was owned - with a mortgage affordable on a single income and substantial equity in place.
The car was also either owned or being purchased on an auto loan (rather than leased), again with substantial equity from the down payment, and again paid for out of that single income - which was also feeding and clothing the 2.3 children and taking a nontrivial vacation once a year or so.
And I have no idea where you are getting those square footage numbers. Our family's houses (we moved a couple times once Dad got done with his degree and was buying rather than living in a student ghetto) were substantially larger than you describe, and were typical of the neighborhoods around them.
Yes, Formica: It was the big deal of the time. Granite is a recent vanity - and a REALLY STUPID idea if you actually USE the kitchen to prepare food on a regular basis. Drop a ceramic or glass utensil on a granite counter and it breaks. Drop it on Formica-over-plywood-or-hardwood and it usually bounces.
stainless steel appliances, automatic dishwasher, automatic dryer, *might* have had a TV (not a 54" LCD),
Yeah we had all those boxes (though the appliances were be enamel rather than stainless). Also a console sound system - pre "Hi Fi" - AM, FM, and four-speed record changeer with diamond needle in the pickup.
The non-electronic appliances lasted for decades, too. (Even the electronics lasted a long time with occasional maintenance - which was required for vacuum tube based equipment - and was AVAILABLE.) Quite unlike the modern stuff. (My own family has been in our townhouse for about 17 years now and is on its third set of "stainless steel appliances", thanks to the rotten construction of post-outsourcing equipment by formerly high-end manufacturers. We're even on our third WATER HEATER: The brain of the new, governent mandated, eco-friendly, replacement flaked out after less than a year - and the manufacturer sent TWO MORE defective replacement brains and one defective gas sensor before lemon-replacing it.)
It sounds more fair when you say charge less in poorer countries. However when you turn it around, it is gouge the people in less poor countries.
Especially given that GDP is not evenly distributed among the population. The bulk of the added revenue from technology driven productivity improvements (at least in the US) has gone to the denizens of the C suites and the government, not to the workers. GDP has soared while real-inflation adjusted after-tax income has stagnated or dropped for decades.
That's much of why a nuclear family in the '50s got along fine on a single income and a two-parent family now involves both parents working and the kids in child care, and the bulk of kids are in "non-traditional" family arrangements and/or on some form of public assistance.
So "gouge the developed world's middle class" is indeed what such a GDP-based scheme would accomplish.
The Pie has FreeBSD and other Linux distro support and lots of i/O to hook up other peripherals.
And I was running Ubuntu 14.04 LTS on a Beagle Bone Black in April of '04 (although its userland was running on a somewhat back-versioned kernel for a couple months until the guy doing the kernel ports got the proper one fully ported).
The Black is not the first Beagle Bone version, either, and it was running Debian Linux from the first time I encountered it. It has lots of I/O hookup opportunities - including onboard USB, Ethernet, video, and lots of GPIOs that can be configured to provide several serial ports and a number of buses, in addition to lots of wiggle wires. And you can stack peripheral boards on it, as well.
Plug in a wall wart, USB hub, keyboard, mouse, monitor, (and, if 4 or 8 Gigabytes of file systems feels too cramped, a USB drive or mount a filesystem from a fileserver). Bingo: a full-blown desktop system with about the power of a cellphone and smaller than a pack of cigarettes (excluding all the stuff you plugged into it, of course).
Which is not to say it's the best choice. it's just one I happen to be familiar with. There are a number of single-board machines out there. Cellphone processor technology is too powerful, cheap, and available to NOT be plowshared.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks to rent control, I'm paying $300 per month less than market rate.
Market distortions can make it financially disastrous to move, as compared to staying in the same place.
Rent control is one.
Another is, for homeowners, is Proposition 13 in California (and similar laws in some other states). Think of it as "rent control on taxes", designed to keep the skyrocketing housing prices from driving people out of their homes:
- Stay at the old place - get taxed on the price of the house when it was bought (or Prop 13 went into effect) plus a small inflation adjustment.
- Sell it and buy a new house in CA (or the same state etc.) - get taxed on the new house's CURRENT price, plus a small inflation adjustment - forever forward. Then there's being taxed on the hyperinflated price of the house you sold as if it were a lump sum of income, unless you take the once-in-a-lifetime exemption or one of the other income tax rules for switching houses without being bankrupted. And the new mortgage is at the current rates, too, and on a much pricier home.
Moving used to be much less of a financial hit than it is now.
Spying on the population was a big driver behind the THIRD amendment:
While forcing the colonists to provide housing and upkeep for the soldiers sent to oppress them was an economic issue, there was more to it than that.
A soldier "quartered" in a colonist's house also served as a spy for the crown and its army. He eavesdropped on the conversations of the family and visiting friends. He had the opportunity to view their records when they weren't home (or even if they were). He reported anything suspicious to his unit. His presence inhibited getting together with others to hold private discussions, especially about opposing (by protest or otherwise) anything the government was doing. He was a continuous walking search, fed and housed by the people he was investigating.
It seems to me that law-enforcement and intelligence agency spyware, such as keyloggers and various data exfiltration tools, is EXACTLY the digital equivalent: It is a digital agent that "lives" in the home or office of the target. It consums the target's resources (disk space, CPU cycles network bandwidth) to support itself. It spies spying on the activities and "papers" of the target, reporting anything suspicious (or anything, actually) back to its commander, to be used as evidence and/or to trigger an arrest or other attack. It is ready, at a moment's notice, to forcefully interfere with, destroy, or corrupt the target's facilities or send forged messages from him.
Spyware is EXACTLY one of the most egregious acts (one of the "Intolerable Acts") that sparked the American Revolution. I'd love to see the Third brought back out of the doldrums and used against these "digital soldiers" the government is "quartering" inside our personal and private computing devices.
Last year I spent close on $3,000 in the USA. This year, I'm going to Sri Lanka.
Enjoy your trip.
Meanwhile, Trump will just have ICE deport three more illegal immigrant households, more than making up for the money you might have spent (even if you'd been giving it straight to the US taxpayers, rather than mostly to the megacorps that exploit them.)
With "buy" using a lowercase "b", it better indicates that "Snap" and "Snap Interactive" are two different entities. Not as good as the quotation marks I just used (which I've no frigging idea if that is a grammatically-acceptable use), but better than it is now.
Officially grammatical or not, putting the quotes around the two company names is how I'd have done it. It nicely clarifies the boundaries of the multiple-word names, making the meaning of the sentence obvious.
Because it isn't really illegeal becasue they changed the law after peoples sstarted doing it that's ENTRAPMENT
You're thinking of "ex post facto" - making an act illegal after it takes place.
I think that would apply to, at least, any rentals that were in progress when the law came into effect. New rentals might be a different matter.
This law amounts to a zoning/land-use law change. If the rentals were actually legal under the previous laws, they might remain legal as a "non-conforming use", despite the new law, until the property is sold to a new owner.
Also: If the new law has the effect of substantially reducing the property's value to its owner, the owner might be able to sue the city for the difference, under the Fifth Amendment's "takings" clause and the doctrine of "partial taking".
But IANAL and even if I were I'm not a New Yorker.
Why hundreds of people were protesting isn't some kind of unsolved mystery that demands or even justifies law enforcement digging through the last decade of electronic personal data in order to "crack" the case. ... The root of the issue is the bullshit justification that a search warrant of this kind was even authorized.
What's that got to do with finding evidence for intent and/or conspiracy? Both are legitimate pieces of evidence to search for, in a place that is legitimate to search with a warrant, and such warrants may be properly granted if probable cause exists.
A group of identically masked "protesters" working together to commit felony assault and arson is just about the definition of "probable cause" for suspecting conspiracy and intent, and legitimately searching for evidence to nail the conviction.
"Begging the question" is almost always used incorrectly...
Unlike, for instance, French (a "dead language spoken by millions"), which has a rule-making body with the force of law that can fine you (in some jurisdictions) for saying "hamburger" in an otherwise French sentence, American English is a living language.
That means what is "correct" is what the bulk of the speakers actually say. It changes from time to time. This is one of those times and one of those changes.
It is also a Germanic language, not a Romance language.
It's similar to the prohibition on ending a sentence with a preposition (which is a rule from Latin which academics keep trying to impose on English speakers, though the grammatical form always was legitimate in English and other Germanic languages). "Begging the Question" began as a mistranslation of a Latin phrase (attributed to Aristotle) that was incorporated as a technical term (for a particular logical fallacy) into a specialized academic vocabulary. But the phrase has ALSO come to be used for other things (which actually match the string of words more closely).
Some academics claim their subculture's first use makes it the only "correct" meaning of the phrase. But like other words and phrases in English, the common usage defines the (set of) "correct" meaning(s).
Setting cars on fire, assaulting people, and breaking windows isn't "protesting."
Well, actually it can be a "protesting" tactic.
But being an "act of protest" doesn't make it any less a violent criminal act, or any less subject to prosecution and criminal sanctions.
It also doesn't make planning to do it in a group any less a felonious conspiracy.
= = = =
I'm waiting with bated breath for the new administration to follow the money back to Soros (busting people all the way along the trail) and find enough evidence to bust him as the kingpin of a criminal conspiracy. Wouldn't THAT cause consternation.
So buy a bigger disk. They're cheap.
That's not the problem. It's the time to process all those files every time you run commands like checkout status diff etc.
Are YOU really having speed issues now?
If not, don't expect to as your project grows, either. As long as the Moore's law variants apply and you don't add developers at an exponential rate, the machines will improve exponentially, wihch is faster than the repository grows. (Even if you DO add developers exponentially the output per developers drops off quickly.)
If you ARE having trouble I'd bet you didn't partition your repositories at project, application/subsystem, or API boundaries Git works fine if you have, say, one repository for the compiler support / standard library or vendor's SDK, another for your project's application, maybe a third for your-stuff specific libraries shared among multiple projects. You glue them together in the makefile common inclusions.
If you aren't crossing a repository boundary where you have separate components that have to interact across distinct release versions, you did something wrong. Even diverge-converge approaches won't give you a good way to test across those version combinations or protect you from change-storms unrelated to YOUR project - not just with git, but with any SCCS I'm familiar with. (And I've been programming - and/or designing digital hardware - for a living since computers were just switching from using tubes.)
The whole point of git is that you have identical copy on your machine. Why take away git's biggest advantage?
Because it's biggest advantage is also one of it's greatest inefficiencies and frankly on a large project chances are you may not need it all. The whole point is you have an identical copy on your machine of what you're working on
So buy a bigger disk. They're cheap.
Why did they do it? It's obvious: it's the bait on the hook to get you to break git and your open source projects (even CURRENT ones) that compete with them.
By keeping you from having a full copy of the repository, they break git: If there are files that you didn't use in recent checkouts, they're not stored locally or not brought up to date when you pull. If something goes wrong externally - like loss or corruption at a cloud site (such as the recent lost-update debacle) you have no non-microsoft-git-internals-expert way to recover - maybe no way to recover at all.
You lose the ability to work offline. You lose the ability to look at history, or parts of the repository you haven't been to yet, without being back on line to a working and trustworthy external server, and so on.
Can we skip option 3 please? B^>
Between you and me? Sure. B-)
Unfortunately it IS on globally, and I'm not sure where the nearest flame shelter is. B-b
SHALL WE PLAY A GAME? y
1 TIC-TAC-TOE
2 CHESS
3 GLOBAL THERMONUCLEAR FLAME WAR
? 3
My understanding is that Executive Orders can only be made for powers either bequeathed to the President via the Constitution, or where Congress has granted the Executive branch those powers via legislation.
We are in total agreement there - that this is the theory,
In practice the President orders as he will, limited only by his conscience (if any), the courts, and (in extremis) behavior so egregious that his underlings would mutiny or Congress would impeach. Essentially that means the courts, which have explicit rules and policies in place to minimize such interference.
LBJ called politics "The Art of the Possible". I've always read that to mean "Everything I Can Get Away With".
In the case of immigration, it is Congress who decides the parameters of who enters the country, but it is the Executive's job to interpret and enforce immigration law.
I note that the "immigration problems" we are currently having stem from various Presidents' choices to NOT enforce immigration law (and Obama's choice to write Executive Orders purporting to grant non-Congressionally-authorized extra immigration waivers and handle incoming illegal immigrants in a way that destroys the paper trail necessary to find and deport them). Trump can keep most of his immigration promises just by switching to vigorously enforcing the laws as written and building the (already Congressionally Mandated and partially funded) wall.
For the rest, Congress, post 9/11, wrote the President a number of anti-terrorism blank checks. I'd be surprised if there wasn't at least one that could be read to authorize his actions. If he can't find or stretch one to fit, THEN he can try to justify it from his Constitutional Powers.
Of course, if it ever DOES come to court, Trump's attorneys can throw ALL the claims at the bench simultaneously. Only one needs to stick.
I wonder how many of these executive orders will stand up to judicial scrutiny?
A lot fewer than have/will be made I suspect.
Ordering the drafting of one, checking it when it's done, sending it back for revision if necessary, and signing it, takes what? A quarter day? That means he can do several a DAY and keep it up as long as he's in office. (He'd need to, even if the courts don't strike even one. There are SO MANY things to shut down and at most he has less than three thousand days to do it - and all the OTHER presidential work as well.) Cost is trivial, since the manpower is already on staff and paid for by government funds.
Pushing opposition to an order's implementation, into and through court, takes months to years. (Again, the government pays for Trump's side, this time to push back.) There's no guarantee it will work, or that it will affect more than a small part of the order if it does work.
For a historic example of how this can work, see how F.D.R. used it to create The New Deal, including its welfare state and fascist control of industry. (The latter mostly got knocked down in court, the former is still with us - all grown up and entrenched.)
Or look at what Obama did with his "Pen and Phone" and a Democratic Party dominated Congress.
Then consider that, in general, (and in contrast to neocon claims,) it's easier to break something than to build it.
This site does does seem to be getting more political and less technical in the choice of stories being put forward.
It's not just here. It's everywhere. For instance:
- I run into these arguments on a computer experts mailing list.
- I see them keep popping up on an alternative energy BBS - bringing the board operators out to repeatedly admonish the posters about the "no political discussions" rule.
- (I'd probably see them in more places but I've been sick as a dog this last week.)
- My wife sees them on a num ber of mailing lists, facebook friends groups, and so on that she's on, including a chicken-breeder's discussion group(!)
As I read it:
- The left-wing movement currently called things like "progressivism" has, for generations, infiltrated power-base organizations and used social pressure to turn their members into group-think clones and the organizations into tools for further expansion and for implementation of their policies. They've just received their first major setback in half a century. Their carefully constructed mechanisms, which they thought were about to give them an unbreakable lock on power, either massively failed to perform or are going onto the chopping block with Trump wieldng the axe. So they are doubling down, frantically applying their tactics, redoubled, in every venu they can still access;
- Their non-members (especially those in rural and/or "fly-over" locations, after decades of being gaslighted, just received a massive sanity-check and became connected with many others who think like them. Further, they saw the other side exposed as what they'd consider evil and corrupt - first by the leaks, then by the tantrum after the loss. With this for armor, they are resisting social-pressure attacks rather than backing down.
So IT'S ON!
Now, as to Congress, well I'm assuming here that these executive orders are based on powers bequeathed to the President by Congress, in which case if Congress doesn't like how Trump is using the powers that have been been granted to him by legislation, then they can amend or repeal any said legislation,...
Close. But let me pick a small, but inprotant, nitl
The Presiden't powers don't come from the Congress. The President's powers come from the Constitution. Some of them do amount to some component of "implementing the laws as passed by Congress". But not all of them are of that form; The others aren't generally subject to congress adding a "Do it this way / don't do it that way" prescription, and even their ability to specify HOW he executes that laws that they DID pass is limited.
The President is head of the Executive branch of the government - one of three co-equal branches. Rule of thumb: If ONE of the branches gets out of hand, it takes BOTH of the other two to override it - and it's a major boat-rocker to do so. When two branches disagree and the third sits it out, the first two each get to run their branches' things their own way.
Having said that: Much of the current over-power of the President and the Executive Branch IS the result of Congress shirking their own hard decisions by handing some of their OWN legislative power off to the Executive, in such forms as rule-making and war-powers preauthorizations. Those do act much as you describe. And they've been used to create the monumental overweening bureaucracy and set of "administrative rules" that Trump is now trying to dismantle, using the same mechanisms as were used to create it.
Trump inherited Obama's "Pen and Phone". The executive order is the writing of the pen. Presidents before him created a set of juggernauts. Trump gets to disassemble them (much to the joy of his supporters) to his heart's content - at least until the Congress takes its own delegated power back. As you point out that's not likely to happen any time soon (and his party has the majority in both houses for the next two years).
Meanwhile, the courts alone are limited in what they can do to counter him, both by the Constitution and their own rules of deferring to the executive unless there's good reason not to, avoiding an override of a law or executive action if a case can be decided on some other basis, limiting the scope of the laws or actions overridden to the minimum needed to decide a case, and not accepting a case for a ruing unless the prayug party is suffering real harm from the law or action being complained about. Further, the top court is tied 4 conservative 4 liberal, and Trump gets to appoint the ninth.
So I would expect Trump to rapidly and selectively smash away. (There's so MANY of these structures to smash, and so little time in no more than two Presidential terms.) And if Congress DOES try to take its power back before he leaves office, tweet about being thrown into briar patches and ROTFLMAO.
...
"Wouldn't it be super weird if you jiggled the Jell-O and found that somehow it responded at a different period?" said Yao.
Not at all:
- If the jello jiggles at 2 Hz and you tap it every half-second, It's not hard at all to get it to dance indefinitely at four times the rate, one quarter the period, of the periodic stimulus. Ditto a high-Q resonator - like a bell. Hit it at the corresponding phase every Nth cycle, often enough that it doesn't decay appreciably, and the bell will appear to ring merrily at N times the frequency of the stimulus, forever.
- Getting something to react periodically at HALF, or 1/Nth, the rate of the stimulus, is a bit more difficult but still not hard. With Jello, for instance, you'd have to hit it in a way that would encourage it to continue in it's way in either half-cycle. Imagine a Jello tower leaning right and left, and tapping its base upward to encourage it to lean more just as it passes the middle going in either direction. That would keep it pumped up.
There are lots of ways to get that latter to work, even without a period tuned to a natural frequency of the thing being provoked:
- A flip-flop divide by two counter. Clock once, changes state. Clock again, changes back to the other state.
- A platform with a slinky in the bottom of one end of an upside-down U-shaped tube. Thump the platform up, and the slinky loops into the other leg of the U. Mechanical flip-flop.
- A wooden platform with, say, a surface feature consisting of a ring of five similar segments shaped so that, if you put a bead in the low spot of one segment, a thump makes it jump to and settle into the next segment around the loop. Put one (or some combination of up to five identical or distinguished - like by color - beads, into the low spots and the pattern of beads moves around among different configurations, returning to starting point every fifth stimulus.
I could go on for hours.
The point is that it may not be immediately obvious, but there's nothing "new physics" about a system stimulated at one rate and going through a set of state transitions that repeats periodicly, to achieve a "wiggle" of an integer fraction of the stimulus.
= = = =
And I suspect that is what is happening here. As I read it, a real time crystal would oscillate without any external stimulus.
It looks to me that, in trying to create their "time crystal", they oversimplified by making a small part of a much larger (perhaps infinite) candidate and using the lasers to simulate the boundary conditions from its connection with the rest of the candidate structure. In doing so they risk creating, instead, something like the divide-by-N situations I described above, with the boundary condition simulator providing the clock for the counter.
Call me when they get one to run without any lasers (or other external pump), say by bending their "conga line" into a circle or folding it into a polygon.
The two lasers that were periodically nudging the ytterbium atoms were producing a repetition in the system at twice the period of the nudges, something that couldn't occur in a normal system.
When they're saying 'twice the period of the nudges', do they mean twice the frequency of the nudges, or twice the duration of the nudges?
I read it as twice the period. Continuing with the rest of the section you quoted:
"Wouldn't it be super weird if you jiggled the Jell-O and found that somehow it responded at a different period?" said Yao.
Not at all:
- If the jello jiggles at 2 Hz and you tap it every half-second, It's not hard at all to get it to dance indefinitely at four times the rate, one quarter the period, of the periodic stimulus. Ditto a high-Q resonator - like a bell. Hit it at the corresponding phase every Nth cycle, often enough that it doesn't
IMHO: A USB device that depends on its power source to limit its input current, and can be damaged by a host that is willing to deliver more current that it requested, is defective by design.
Ditto any supply (such as a laptop's USB port) that can be damaged by an excessive load - all the way down to a short to ground. Current limiters are not that costly, and one smart enough to negotiate higher limits involves enough custom silicon that it can also be designed to enforce the higher limits in a self-protecting manner, as well.
Protecting itself from being driven by an out-of-range voltage is another issue. But any USB host port at any level of the spec SHOULD be able to handle any voltage between zero and +5 on any of the non-ground pins, and any resistance - down to zero - to the ground pin. Perhaps not according to the standard, but certainly according to reasonable engineering practice.
What bugs me about USB power is that the negotation for more than a tenth-amp (half-watt) takes place partly on the data lines. That means they need to be connected between the peripheral and the source.
So any charger device for a power-hungry gadget (such as a smartphone) will have a full four-wire connection and have the opportunity to attempt to exploit any USB port vulnerabilities of the device. Making a "condom" adapter to only connect the +5 and ground wires will normally provide reduce performance (if it works at all). Vetting one that does connect to the data lines on both sides is difficult - both to insure that it does what's intended and doesn't have a backdoor, and that it, itself, isn't such an attacking device.
Given that Russian intelligence was already caught handing out phone-cracking "USB chargers" to many countries' high officials at an international conference, the threat not just a hypothetical.
(Note that some powered hubs just tie +5 and ground to the supply, rather than try to negotiate and enforce per-port power limits, too.)
IMHO: A USB device that depends on its power source to limit its input current, and can be damaged by a host that is willing to deliver more current that it requested, is defective by design. The negotiation and enforcement is for the benefit of the power source (for instance, a laptop trying to protect its battery life).
Russia disliked Clinton but she was competent and her presidency would not have resulted in a u.s./russia nuclear war.
Given that the policies and actions she and Obama implemented were the bulk of what led to the rise of ISIS (just to name ONE global-level failure that MIGHT YET continue to escalate into global thermonuclear war), I find it difficult to agree with your assertion.
On the other hand President Trump just lost all the senior state department officials.
Yay! No more globalist neocons. Trump (or his delegates) gets to fill those important positions as soon as suitable people are identified to hold the positions, rather than first going through a lengthy stage of sorting out and extracting those who oppose his policies - while they fight tooth-and-nail to sabotage the implementation of his foreign policy.
President Trump is a huge narcissist and most of his cabinet choices are not chosen for competency.
President Trump has a long track record of building a multibillion dollar commercial organization - by setting policies and picking people who can implement them successfully (or talk him into allowing appropriate changes if necessary). I'd expect him to make appropriate choices to do the corresponding thing in running the executive branch.
And I'd be inclined to defer to his expertise in this, especially when it comes to deciding what qualities are necessary for each position. Even if it looks to ME like he's making a bad choice, I wouldn't trust either my contrary opinion or that of even alleged experts. Others who have had similar success might be able to give an informed critique, but even their statements would be suspect, as people in such positions normally don't make a boat-rocking public statement unless there's something in it for them that outweighs the costs.
President Trump is emotionally erratic, rash and impulsive.
As compared to Hillary? ROFL! As far as I can see, to the extent Hillary is more stable, it's in the execution of her program to amass as much under-the-table funding as possible. I'd rather foreign policy be operated by an independently-wealthy resort hotel magnate than as a for-profit enterprise.
Also: The MAD doctrine of the Cold War is STILL part of holding off World War III. For that to work, the president has to look JUST crazy and volatile enough that he might actually "push the button" if provoked too hard - but sane enough to make deals and stick to them. The track record in business - and as the author of "The Art of the Deal" - has the latter covered. But to cover the former he needs to be VERY CAREFUL to keep looking just a little erratic and crazy.
Of course, the nuclear family of the 1950s had: ...
a 1200 (not 2200) sqft house,
formica (not granite) counters,
But the house was owned - with a mortgage affordable on a single income and substantial equity in place.
The car was also either owned or being purchased on an auto loan (rather than leased), again with substantial equity from the down payment, and again paid for out of that single income - which was also feeding and clothing the 2.3 children and taking a nontrivial vacation once a year or so.
And I have no idea where you are getting those square footage numbers. Our family's houses (we moved a couple times once Dad got done with his degree and was buying rather than living in a student ghetto) were substantially larger than you describe, and were typical of the neighborhoods around them.
Yes, Formica: It was the big deal of the time. Granite is a recent vanity - and a REALLY STUPID idea if you actually USE the kitchen to prepare food on a regular basis. Drop a ceramic or glass utensil on a granite counter and it breaks. Drop it on Formica-over-plywood-or-hardwood and it usually bounces.
stainless steel appliances,
automatic dishwasher,
automatic dryer,
*might* have had a TV (not a 54" LCD),
Yeah we had all those boxes (though the appliances were be enamel rather than stainless). Also a console sound system - pre "Hi Fi" - AM, FM, and four-speed record changeer with diamond needle in the pickup.
The non-electronic appliances lasted for decades, too. (Even the electronics lasted a long time with occasional maintenance - which was required for vacuum tube based equipment - and was AVAILABLE.) Quite unlike the modern stuff. (My own family has been in our townhouse for about 17 years now and is on its third set of "stainless steel appliances", thanks to the rotten construction of post-outsourcing equipment by formerly high-end manufacturers. We're even on our third WATER HEATER: The brain of the new, governent mandated, eco-friendly, replacement flaked out after less than a year - and the manufacturer sent TWO MORE defective replacement brains and one defective gas sensor before lemon-replacing it.)
And is that question scribbled on airport walls country wide?
It sounds more fair when you say charge less in poorer countries. However when you turn it around, it is gouge the people in less poor countries.
Especially given that GDP is not evenly distributed among the population. The bulk of the added revenue from technology driven productivity improvements (at least in the US) has gone to the denizens of the C suites and the government, not to the workers. GDP has soared while real-inflation adjusted after-tax income has stagnated or dropped for decades.
That's much of why a nuclear family in the '50s got along fine on a single income and a two-parent family now involves both parents working and the kids in child care, and the bulk of kids are in "non-traditional" family arrangements and/or on some form of public assistance.
So "gouge the developed world's middle class" is indeed what such a GDP-based scheme would accomplish.
The Pie has FreeBSD and other Linux distro support and lots of i/O to hook up other peripherals.
And I was running Ubuntu 14.04 LTS on a Beagle Bone Black in April of '04 (although its userland was running on a somewhat back-versioned kernel for a couple months until the guy doing the kernel ports got the proper one fully ported).
The Black is not the first Beagle Bone version, either, and it was running Debian Linux from the first time I encountered it. It has lots of I/O hookup opportunities - including onboard USB, Ethernet, video, and lots of GPIOs that can be configured to provide several serial ports and a number of buses, in addition to lots of wiggle wires. And you can stack peripheral boards on it, as well.
Plug in a wall wart, USB hub, keyboard, mouse, monitor, (and, if 4 or 8 Gigabytes of file systems feels too cramped, a USB drive or mount a filesystem from a fileserver). Bingo: a full-blown desktop system with about the power of a cellphone and smaller than a pack of cigarettes (excluding all the stuff you plugged into it, of course).
Which is not to say it's the best choice. it's just one I happen to be familiar with. There are a number of single-board machines out there. Cellphone processor technology is too powerful, cheap, and available to NOT be plowshared.