Sure, but as the reviews are pointless 99% f the time, that's basically just throwing wealth away in compliance costs.
Sure, $241 million next year is a little less than $1/person in the country, but if you don't mind wasting that, feel free to send me $241 million and I'll make much better use of it than blowing it on pointless paperwork.
Federal government revenue per capita in inflation-adjusted dollars is up by 3x in the last 40 years.
The problem is that spending is up 4x in the same measure.
Spending is completely the issue, not the near record levels of revenue. Even a relatively minor slowdown in the annual spending increases would balance the budget in 20 years.
It 's the shock wave being generated by the passage of the rocket at high speed through the atmosphere. If the rocket curves/turns, the shock wave generated in the previous direction has an opportunity to dissipate instead of continuing to build up.
So same amount of force exerted on the atmosphere, but not as concentrated in one direction and shorter duration.
Interestingly, they apparently also managed to minorly disrupt GPS signals in the area as well, similar to a magnetic sun storm, but much more localized.
To be fair, Obama started a couple of actual wars which he was at best in a holding pattern on. Then Trump took office, unleashed the military and now the U.S. is winning handily. See also ISIS controlled territory being reduced 89% during the first year of Trump in office, to a now negligible level.
Tariffs are stupid. As you say, they are basically a tax on consumers and companies which use the products as an input, for the minor benefit of the typically much smaller group which makes whatever the tariff is on.
There are plenty of Republicans who are against tariffs, even among the politicians. Pre-Trump, it was a signature issue for many Democratic politicians. In 2016 it moved to about half of the members of both parties against tariffs. Trump has "convinced" some Republicans on the issue, but my cynical nature is that it's an issue popular among ignorant-of-economics blue collar workers, so it's being used as a wedge to help keep their rust-belt/midwest votes away from the Democrats.
A Trump campaign official said the campaign used the Republican National Committee for its voter data in 2016, not Cambridge Analytica.
“Any claims that voter data were used from another source to support the victory in 2016 are false,” said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
In past interviews with Reuters, Brad Parscale, who ran Trump’s digital ad operation in 2016 and is his 2020 re-election campaign manager, has said Cambridge Analytica played a minor role as a contractor in the 2016 campaign.
He said the campaign used voter data from a Republican-affiliated organization rather than Cambridge Analytica.
purchased to aid President Trump's successful 2016 bid for the presidency
This is somewhat easy to misconstrue. Most people will take that as the data was used in the general election, when according to this story:
“In late September 2016, Cambridge and other data vendors were submitting bids to the Trump campaign. Then-candidate Trump’s campaign used Cambridge Analytica during the primaries and in the summer because it was never certain the Republican National Committee would be a willing, cooperative partner. Cambridge Analytica instead was a hedge against the RNC, in case it wouldn’t share its data.
The crucial decision was made in late September or early October when Mr. Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner and Brad Parscale, Mr. Trump’s digital guru on the 2016 campaign, decided to utilize just the RNC data for the general election and used nothing from that point from Cambridge Analytica or any other data vendor. The Trump campaign had tested the RNC data, and it proved to be vastly more accurate than Cambridge Analytica’s, and when it was clear the RNC would be a willing partner, Mr. Trump’s campaign was able to rely solely on the RNC. “
While you posted what I said, once again, all you did was try to put words in my mouth, rather than responding to what I actually wrote.
You are indeed admitting that you don't know any Flat Earthers. How can you know that the people who post videos are in fact joking?
I didn't say either of those things. In the sentence "They're completely joking and so are their friends.", "They're" refers to the subject of my previous sentence "My teenage kids".
You were saying I didn't know anything even though I do know actual Flat Earthers and you do not.
It's pretty funny that you quote what I say, then turn around and give your "interpretation" of it, ignoring the words I actually wrote.
I did above.
Actually, you didn't. You couldn't even respond to what I actually wrote even after quoting it yourself. That's one serious mind reading complex you have.
you got defensive
Mind and emotion reading! Quite the assortment of super-powers you have there.
You cannot possibly know that any or all of the people who posted the videos are joking. And you cannot possibly know who I know.
Once again, I never wrote anything about "all of the people who posted the videos". Also, if you'd ever bother to read what I actually wrote, "So I guess you just hang out with a different crowd." would imply that I am "guessing" that you know a different group of people. That statement doesn't imply any claims on my part about "knowing" who you know or don't know, but simply a guess which actually guesses in the opposite direction you seem to want to falsely attribute to me.
Please consider a reading comprehension course, 'cause you're flunking this one.
I've never made either the statements (#1 nor #2) in your post which I am replying to, so it's pretty amusing that you're using things you just made up about what you apparently believe I think to claim that I am certain about you in regards to them.
How about you try quoting what I've actually posted in this topic and then explaining why you disagree with it, rather then attempting to put words in my mouth and then claiming I'm the one who is being illogical.
I definitely stand by my original claim that your username is very appropriate for your statements, as demonstrated by the way you're trying to argue here.
And yet, you still use Waze, implying that those sorts of problems are easy for app users to figure out who take similar routes frequently (i.e. commuters, most drivers who use them). So even your anecdotal evidence doesn't imply that people using waze and google is causing more traffic problems overall, as opposed to some specific individual traffic problem for one small group of people.
If everyone using waze on average has their drive improved (even if there are issues with it sometimes), then it's making their traffic experiences better.
The more people you have the more pollution you get
And yet, the population has been increasing for a while now and we still have less polution. Funny how empirical evidence contradicts your "fact".
Obviously we have had decent science around for at least 100 years and the world still has hunger, disease, homelessness and numerous wars that have to do with poverty.
And yet, there is less hunger, disease, homelessness and death via war than there was 50, or 100, or 200, or whatever years ago. True, that's mostly due to market transactions and not strictly science, but you don't seem to be recognizing the reality of the state of the world over time.
As for your global warming catastrophic consequences, not even the super-pumped-for-global-warming IPCC climatologists believe that B.S. What you're talking about is just fiction from some movies trying to scare people. I mean really, the Mississippi River "simply stop flowing into the ocean"?!? Do you even know what gravity is? These are basic scientific concepts, buddy, it ain't that difficult...
He has a PHd in political "science" and he taught statistics as a professor at the University of Aarhus in Denmark. Pretty sure that makes him more of a scientist and statistician than a random commentator on / like you. But hey, here's a list of his published scientific papers, mostly via the Cambridge University Press. I'm sure you'll be able to refute all this by giving us a list of your published papers showing how much better of a scientist and statistician you are. I won't hold my breath.
All of the most common streaming protocols (HLS, HDS) use TCP connections. In fact, they mostly use HTTP over TCP/IP connections.
It seems like you're confusing higher level "protocols" with lower level protocols, of which you can pretty much use TCP or UDP on the Internet. Streaming connections virtually all use TCP, not UDP.
So yeah, you'd run HLS as a specialized application for streaming version of HTTP, but you'd do it with normal TCP connections and all that entails as the underlying session/transport layer and with IP as the network layer.
Bayen said that nobody has managed to do a multi-scale analysis that can determine if the apps, even if they create local problems, are better or worse for whole traffic basins.
And
That said, they have not proven this yet. While it’s clear that these apps can put stress on local side streets, we still don’t know what effect they may have on highways, or for traffic systems as a whole.
So basically, someone has a theory that a counter-intuitive result which doesn't match people's experience and implies people getting off a stopped freeway makes traffic worse (but that people can't figure that out over time in a scenario which plays out frequently on their daily commute), but hasn't actually come up with evidence for that theory (at least, not in this article nor paper), but hey, look at the shiny theory!!!
Do you always resort to argument by trying to define conversational terms to exclude what you're arguing about? You know that's not actually an argument, right?
We were talking about "Flat Earthers", not "actual Flat Earthers". The kind who post videos on Youtube with whimsical arguments they don't actually believe about flat earth theories. Yeah, I know some of those kinds of people.
Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies (Kleck, 1988; Kleck and DeLone, 1993; Southwick, 2000; Tark and Kleck, 2004).
And you posted this to agree with me, or what? The poster I was responding to and quoted said that "the US would not be in the top ten." (Emphasis added).
So yeah, that's what I said, being in the top 3 is part of being in the top 10....
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, but as the reviews are pointless 99% f the time, that's basically just throwing wealth away in compliance costs.
Sure, $241 million next year is a little less than $1/person in the country, but if you don't mind wasting that, feel free to send me $241 million and I'll make much better use of it than blowing it on pointless paperwork.
Federal government revenue per capita in inflation-adjusted dollars is up by 3x in the last 40 years.
The problem is that spending is up 4x in the same measure.
Spending is completely the issue, not the near record levels of revenue. Even a relatively minor slowdown in the annual spending increases would balance the budget in 20 years.
It 's the shock wave being generated by the passage of the rocket at high speed through the atmosphere. If the rocket curves/turns, the shock wave generated in the previous direction has an opportunity to dissipate instead of continuing to build up.
So same amount of force exerted on the atmosphere, but not as concentrated in one direction and shorter duration.
Interestingly, they apparently also managed to minorly disrupt GPS signals in the area as well, similar to a magnetic sun storm, but much more localized.
That's funny. $5/hour in the U.S. is half the minimum wage. The median household income in the U.S. is slightly higher than it is in Australia.
To be fair, Obama started a couple of actual wars which he was at best in a holding pattern on. Then Trump took office, unleashed the military and now the U.S. is winning handily. See also ISIS controlled territory being reduced 89% during the first year of Trump in office, to a now negligible level.
Tariffs are stupid. As you say, they are basically a tax on consumers and companies which use the products as an input, for the minor benefit of the typically much smaller group which makes whatever the tariff is on.
There are plenty of Republicans who are against tariffs, even among the politicians. Pre-Trump, it was a signature issue for many Democratic politicians. In 2016 it moved to about half of the members of both parties against tariffs. Trump has "convinced" some Republicans on the issue, but my cynical nature is that it's an issue popular among ignorant-of-economics blue collar workers, so it's being used as a wedge to help keep their rust-belt/midwest votes away from the Democrats.
I thought the source for the article was obviously Brad Parscale.
But here's a similar Reuters article which identifies it's sources more explicitly:
Missing link from above.
This is somewhat easy to misconstrue. Most people will take that as the data was used in the general election, when according to this story:
While you posted what I said, once again, all you did was try to put words in my mouth, rather than responding to what I actually wrote.
I didn't say either of those things. In the sentence "They're completely joking and so are their friends.", "They're" refers to the subject of my previous sentence "My teenage kids".
It's pretty funny that you quote what I say, then turn around and give your "interpretation" of it, ignoring the words I actually wrote.
Actually, you didn't. You couldn't even respond to what I actually wrote even after quoting it yourself. That's one serious mind reading complex you have.
Mind and emotion reading! Quite the assortment of super-powers you have there.
Once again, I never wrote anything about "all of the people who posted the videos". Also, if you'd ever bother to read what I actually wrote, "So I guess you just hang out with a different crowd." would imply that I am "guessing" that you know a different group of people. That statement doesn't imply any claims on my part about "knowing" who you know or don't know, but simply a guess which actually guesses in the opposite direction you seem to want to falsely attribute to me.
Please consider a reading comprehension course, 'cause you're flunking this one.
You're projecting quite a bit here.
I've never made either the statements (#1 nor #2) in your post which I am replying to, so it's pretty amusing that you're using things you just made up about what you apparently believe I think to claim that I am certain about you in regards to them.
How about you try quoting what I've actually posted in this topic and then explaining why you disagree with it, rather then attempting to put words in my mouth and then claiming I'm the one who is being illogical.
I definitely stand by my original claim that your username is very appropriate for your statements, as demonstrated by the way you're trying to argue here.
And yet, you still use Waze, implying that those sorts of problems are easy for app users to figure out who take similar routes frequently (i.e. commuters, most drivers who use them). So even your anecdotal evidence doesn't imply that people using waze and google is causing more traffic problems overall, as opposed to some specific individual traffic problem for one small group of people.
If everyone using waze on average has their drive improved (even if there are issues with it sometimes), then it's making their traffic experiences better.
And yet, the population has been increasing for a while now and we still have less polution. Funny how empirical evidence contradicts your "fact".
And yet, there is less hunger, disease, homelessness and death via war than there was 50, or 100, or 200, or whatever years ago. True, that's mostly due to market transactions and not strictly science, but you don't seem to be recognizing the reality of the state of the world over time.
As for your global warming catastrophic consequences, not even the super-pumped-for-global-warming IPCC climatologists believe that B.S. What you're talking about is just fiction from some movies trying to scare people. I mean really, the Mississippi River "simply stop flowing into the ocean"?!? Do you even know what gravity is? These are basic scientific concepts, buddy, it ain't that difficult...
He has a PHd in political "science" and he taught statistics as a professor at the University of Aarhus in Denmark. Pretty sure that makes him more of a scientist and statistician than a random commentator on / like you. But hey, here's a list of his published scientific papers, mostly via the Cambridge University Press. I'm sure you'll be able to refute all this by giving us a list of your published papers showing how much better of a scientist and statistician you are. I won't hold my breath.
All of the most common streaming protocols (HLS, HDS) use TCP connections. In fact, they mostly use HTTP over TCP/IP connections.
It seems like you're confusing higher level "protocols" with lower level protocols, of which you can pretty much use TCP or UDP on the Internet. Streaming connections virtually all use TCP, not UDP.
So yeah, you'd run HLS as a specialized application for streaming version of HTTP, but you'd do it with normal TCP connections and all that entails as the underlying session/transport layer and with IP as the network layer.
The article contradicts much of the summary:
And
So basically, someone has a theory that a counter-intuitive result which doesn't match people's experience and implies people getting off a stopped freeway makes traffic worse (but that people can't figure that out over time in a scenario which plays out frequently on their daily commute), but hasn't actually come up with evidence for that theory (at least, not in this article nor paper), but hey, look at the shiny theory!!!
Do you always resort to argument by trying to define conversational terms to exclude what you're arguing about? You know that's not actually an argument, right?
We were talking about "Flat Earthers", not "actual Flat Earthers". The kind who post videos on Youtube with whimsical arguments they don't actually believe about flat earth theories. Yeah, I know some of those kinds of people.
My teenage kids debate it with their friends. They're completely joking and so are their friends. It's used to make obscure physics references.
The newsworthy guy with the rocket recently, he was completely joking.
So I guess you just hang out with a different crowd.
To be fair, his username is "UnknowingFool", so his position on this is appropriate...
- "Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence." Institute of Medicine and . 2013. Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18319.
Is that how it worked before they were classified under Title II a couple of years ago? No?
Then no, it's not how it will work now that we're back to that.
And you posted this to agree with me, or what? The poster I was responding to and quoted said that "the US would not be in the top ten." (Emphasis added).
So yeah, that's what I said, being in the top 3 is part of being in the top 10....
Well, feel free to educate yourself, then. You have access to the Internet, after all. :)
One of the fun things about the Internet is how much random data you can find in just a few seconds. For example, the toy spending per child of various countries.
And you'd be totally and completely wrong. Try #3, roughly the same (within 3%) of the top two, Australia and Great Britain.
Of course, you're also wrong in regards to the middle class and the rich and about austerity, so it's not a shocker that you're also wrong about toys.
Finally, a way to actually turn off updates until we want them in Windows 10 and MS comes back and takes the feature away. Sheesh!