Who's mission in life is it to help all governments collect more taxes?
That's not the mission. The mission is to help governments collect from the people who legitimately owe the taxes, instead of having to raise rates on the people who don't, i.e., everybody else (or inflate the currency, which amounts to the same thing).
"Hydrocarbon fuel" doesn't necessarily imply "fossil fuel," you know! Synthetic fuels and biofuels are easy sustainability solutions that even work with the infrastructure and aircraft we have now, without the physical impossibility of solar or the political impossibility of nuclear.
So a rocket breack up into 4+ parts and 4 of those stay in 30 meter proximity to each other, floating in space?
Yep. In the absence of aerodynamic forces, propulsion forces, or any other forces for that matter, what else would you expect them to do? You should go play some Kerbal Space Program so you get some better intuition about it.
With the right angle for the go pro to film?...
What makes you think they used only one camera, or got the shot on the first try?
To sceptical I am?
"Skeptical" is not a verb and therefore makes no sense in an infinitive phrase.
The lesson here is that different power sources are appropriate in different areas: hydro is good in areas where it doesn't destroy the fish habitat, but bad in areas where it does. Nuclear is good in the middle of nowhere, but bad in close proximity to NYC. Solar is good in the desert, but bad on north-facing slopes in cloudy areas. Wind is great on bare ridges and offshore, but not so great for forested valleys. Every form of electricity generation, except fossil fuels, has its place.
I'd almost suggest Microsoft could extract the value by installing Bitcoin mining software on everyone's PC, but there's no way they'd do that without inventing their own proprietary "M$Coin" first.
The state-based approach is for each state to assign its electors proportionally to the popular vote. So if your state has 10 electors, and 60% of the votes go to candidate A and 40% of the votes go to candidate B, then give 6 votes to A and 4 votes to B. Most states give all 10 votes to A. Changing that will get you 90% of the way toward a direct election. The 2 limitations would be: rounding error, unless you can give half of an elector, and the fact that electors are not exactly according to population (see "The Great Compromise" I linked to above). And better yet: If there are 3 candidates, allocate the votes across all 3 instead of just the top 2.
You call this "easy," but game theory makes it really, really hard. Any party with a majority in the state would be going against its own interests by allowing this, so in order for it to happen you'd have to have either an almost perfectly-purple state or you'd have to have a party with a current majority but that (for some reason) expected to imminently lose it.
While we are at it, lets use a run-off instead of a plurality system. That's one area I think the founders really were wrong.
To be fair, in 1776 neither Condorcet voting or Instant Runoff Voting had been invented yet.
But looking at the presidents in the last 50 years, I'm not sure that direct election is a good idea. We have gotten too good at marketing, so the average person is too easily fooled. Today, America elects popular, wealthy, dogmatic, liars. If we went back to the old way, of having senators elect a president, perhaps we would get a real compromiser instead of a reality TV show star.
No kidding. We should repeal the 17th Amendment too, while we're at it. It's counterintuitive, but I believe that not directly electing Senators would actually make the system more democratic because it would shift the balance of power towards the state legislatures (and away form the Federal government), and force voters to pay more attention to their state reps. Because state reps have smaller constituencies, voters have more influence than they do over a Senator, who is more susceptible to large special-interest donors.
They are not unaccountable for this choice. As an elected official, if you hate the choice they made at the convention, its well within your power to vote to remove them from office the next time they are up for election (for the vast majority of them, that will be this November).
My representative is John Lewis, civil rights icon. The chance of him getting voted out of office for supporting Clinton (whose husband's policies were disastrous for black people) instead of Sanders (who was legitimately involved in the civil rights movement too, even if Mr. Lewis doesn't remember), is practically zero.
I'm not saying you should be redeveloping an entire OS every time. I'm saying that you should maintain a fork of the OS along with your application. In life-safety-critical situations, you need to have complete control of the environment in which the software is running.
The only sane way to develop such a thing would be for the vendor to be responsible for the entire software stack from the firmware on up. This sort of stuff should never be built on Windows in the first place!
Why isn't there more mainstream backlash against Windows 10?
It's gonna have to wait at least until Windows 10 kills somebody (say, by shutting down their hospital life support to install updates) for that to happen, and probably not even then.
Hillary's path to victory is Trump's staggering net unfavourables.
And vice-versa.
Sanders can win where Hillary cannot because he's been so ideologically consistent there's very little to attack. Even accusing him of being a socialist wouldn't work 'cause he'd just reply "yeah, so what if I am?!"
Nah, Trump will pivot towards the center so fast his hair will leave an afterimage, like the Picard Maneuver. Not only will nobody care (because the cult of personality has taken over at this point), even if they did care, what are they gonna do -- vote for Hillary instead?!
Bernie supporters don't "hate" Hillary, we just think Bernie is a better choice.
Some don't, but others do. As someone who supports Sanders because of the anti-Wall-Street, anti-corruption, and anti-DC-establishment facets of his platform, Hillary has nothing to offer me (except in cases where she's flip-flopped in response to Sanders, such as for the TPP -- but I don't believe for a second that she'll remain opposed to the TPP after the election).
I don't think I could vote for Trump, but going for Jill Stein (or maybe even the Libertarian candidate), or writing in Sanders, is a distinct possibility.
The trouble with Hillary (as opposed to Sanders) is that normal people shouldn't want her to get her agenda done, because her agenda is "fuck over the general public in favor of the political establishment and Wall Street," with a few scraps of liberalism thrown in to stop most idiots from noticing. (In other words, exactly the same agenda as most of the non-Trump GOP candidates, except their scraps are conservative.)
No, he beat at least a few because they weren't divisive and terrible enough. You just don't remember the relatively-moderate Republican candidates because they never even made it to the first debate.
I can't see myself voting for Trump (his rhetoric has gotten too close to the moral event horizon), but I can see myself abstaining, going third-party, or even writing in Sanders anyway.
Well as I said I'm not in the US so I'm basing things on what I read in the popular press.
That's a mistake. The Clinton political machine has the popular press as its greatest ally; they've been doing everything they can to bury the Sanders campaign (and the progressives' extreme dissatisfaction with Hillary) from the start -- Hell, since 2008, really!
After all, there's a reason why she lost to a nobody from Chicago back then, and it's the same reason why she's barely squeaking ahead of a "socialist" (which is still a dirty word here) now: she's just the fundamentally untrustworthy embodiment of all the worst aspects of the "washington insider" establishment. She gets blown away on character voters, and she loses even on issue voters because they can't trust her not to flip-flop. The only voting blocs she really resonates with are the rest of the party establishment and people who prioritize not electing another white guy above all else.
From where I sit Sanders and Clinton seem to represent two parts of the same party
FYI, Sanders is only running as a Democrat in this election. Until 2015, he was an independent. If the US had a parliamentary system he'd certainly be a Green or something, not a Democrat.
There are a lot of Democrats who are really tired of her looking them in the eye and simply telling bald-faced lies.
To be fair, since she's female there is literally no other way for her to lie (at least, short of hormone therapy).
Sorry, that was a bad, pedantic joke. Moving on...
They've seen it from both Clintons for decades, and are warming up instead the Get Free Stuff plan from Sanders.
Indeed. Lots of Clinton supports have been pretending that Sanders supporters only care about getting free stuff, but the reality is that for a lot of us, that's the least appealing thing about him! I'm certainly willing to hold my nose and accept an unworkable "free college" plan (that would never pass Congress anyway) in return for defeating the TPP, reining in Wall Street, etc.
This is an election about character (moreso than in other elections), and Clinton has been ignoring that, to her detriment, vs. both Sanders and Trump. If Trump pivots away from the hate rhetoric, as he is likely to do, and reaffirms the suspicious of a lot of moderate independents that he was just pandering to the GOP base all along and wasn't actually a bigot, then he has a real (greater than 50%) shot at winning the general election.
No, Hillary is clearly following in Bill's footsteps on the copyright and trade issues the GP referenced, what with her support for the TPP and all. Where the GP errs is in failing to recognize it as a bad thing!
His main disadvantage is that he alienates people, and Clinton knows how to make someone else's gaffe stick.
It should be abundantly clear by now that Trump is immune to such tactics. Remember, he's been a celebrity asshole just as long as Hillary has been a politician!
Slashdot Mirror
That's not the mission. The mission is to help governments collect from the people who legitimately owe the taxes, instead of having to raise rates on the people who don't, i.e., everybody else (or inflate the currency, which amounts to the same thing).
"Hydrocarbon fuel" doesn't necessarily imply "fossil fuel," you know! Synthetic fuels and biofuels are easy sustainability solutions that even work with the infrastructure and aircraft we have now, without the physical impossibility of solar or the political impossibility of nuclear.
367.9 crimes / 100,000 people * 315,100,000 people = 1,159,000 crimes. Not 116 billion!
You are technically correct -- the best kind of correct.
Yep. In the absence of aerodynamic forces, propulsion forces, or any other forces for that matter, what else would you expect them to do? You should go play some Kerbal Space Program so you get some better intuition about it.
What makes you think they used only one camera, or got the shot on the first try?
"Skeptical" is not a verb and therefore makes no sense in an infinitive phrase.
Here's one.
The lesson here is that different power sources are appropriate in different areas: hydro is good in areas where it doesn't destroy the fish habitat, but bad in areas where it does. Nuclear is good in the middle of nowhere, but bad in close proximity to NYC. Solar is good in the desert, but bad on north-facing slopes in cloudy areas. Wind is great on bare ridges and offshore, but not so great for forested valleys. Every form of electricity generation, except fossil fuels, has its place.
Of course Windows 10 will be the last version of Windows, in the same way that Mac OS X was the last version of Mac OS.
I'd almost suggest Microsoft could extract the value by installing Bitcoin mining software on everyone's PC, but there's no way they'd do that without inventing their own proprietary "M$Coin" first.
You call this "easy," but game theory makes it really, really hard. Any party with a majority in the state would be going against its own interests by allowing this, so in order for it to happen you'd have to have either an almost perfectly-purple state or you'd have to have a party with a current majority but that (for some reason) expected to imminently lose it.
To be fair, in 1776 neither Condorcet voting or Instant Runoff Voting had been invented yet.
No kidding. We should repeal the 17th Amendment too, while we're at it. It's counterintuitive, but I believe that not directly electing Senators would actually make the system more democratic because it would shift the balance of power towards the state legislatures (and away form the Federal government), and force voters to pay more attention to their state reps. Because state reps have smaller constituencies, voters have more influence than they do over a Senator, who is more susceptible to large special-interest donors.
My representative is John Lewis, civil rights icon. The chance of him getting voted out of office for supporting Clinton (whose husband's policies were disastrous for black people) instead of Sanders (who was legitimately involved in the civil rights movement too, even if Mr. Lewis doesn't remember), is practically zero.
I'm not saying you should be redeveloping an entire OS every time. I'm saying that you should maintain a fork of the OS along with your application. In life-safety-critical situations, you need to have complete control of the environment in which the software is running.
I think you need to give your keyboard a whack too.
The only sane way to develop such a thing would be for the vendor to be responsible for the entire software stack from the firmware on up. This sort of stuff should never be built on Windows in the first place!
"Sorry all you folks who had to abandon your homes in the exclusion zone; Microsoft's EULA says they're not liable."
It's gonna have to wait at least until Windows 10 kills somebody (say, by shutting down their hospital life support to install updates) for that to happen, and probably not even then.
And vice-versa.
Sanders can win where Hillary cannot because he's been so ideologically consistent there's very little to attack. Even accusing him of being a socialist wouldn't work 'cause he'd just reply "yeah, so what if I am?!"
Nah, Trump will pivot towards the center so fast his hair will leave an afterimage, like the Picard Maneuver. Not only will nobody care (because the cult of personality has taken over at this point), even if they did care, what are they gonna do -- vote for Hillary instead?!
Some don't, but others do. As someone who supports Sanders because of the anti-Wall-Street, anti-corruption, and anti-DC-establishment facets of his platform, Hillary has nothing to offer me (except in cases where she's flip-flopped in response to Sanders, such as for the TPP -- but I don't believe for a second that she'll remain opposed to the TPP after the election).
I don't think I could vote for Trump, but going for Jill Stein (or maybe even the Libertarian candidate), or writing in Sanders, is a distinct possibility.
The trouble with Hillary (as opposed to Sanders) is that normal people shouldn't want her to get her agenda done, because her agenda is "fuck over the general public in favor of the political establishment and Wall Street," with a few scraps of liberalism thrown in to stop most idiots from noticing. (In other words, exactly the same agenda as most of the non-Trump GOP candidates, except their scraps are conservative.)
No, he beat at least a few because they weren't divisive and terrible enough. You just don't remember the relatively-moderate Republican candidates because they never even made it to the first debate.
I can't see myself voting for Trump (his rhetoric has gotten too close to the moral event horizon), but I can see myself abstaining, going third-party, or even writing in Sanders anyway.
That's a mistake. The Clinton political machine has the popular press as its greatest ally; they've been doing everything they can to bury the Sanders campaign (and the progressives' extreme dissatisfaction with Hillary) from the start -- Hell, since 2008, really!
After all, there's a reason why she lost to a nobody from Chicago back then, and it's the same reason why she's barely squeaking ahead of a "socialist" (which is still a dirty word here) now: she's just the fundamentally untrustworthy embodiment of all the worst aspects of the "washington insider" establishment. She gets blown away on character voters, and she loses even on issue voters because they can't trust her not to flip-flop. The only voting blocs she really resonates with are the rest of the party establishment and people who prioritize not electing another white guy above all else.
FYI, Sanders is only running as a Democrat in this election. Until 2015, he was an independent. If the US had a parliamentary system he'd certainly be a Green or something, not a Democrat.
To be fair, since she's female there is literally no other way for her to lie (at least, short of hormone therapy).
Sorry, that was a bad, pedantic joke. Moving on...
Indeed. Lots of Clinton supports have been pretending that Sanders supporters only care about getting free stuff, but the reality is that for a lot of us, that's the least appealing thing about him! I'm certainly willing to hold my nose and accept an unworkable "free college" plan (that would never pass Congress anyway) in return for defeating the TPP, reining in Wall Street, etc.
This is an election about character (moreso than in other elections), and Clinton has been ignoring that, to her detriment, vs. both Sanders and Trump. If Trump pivots away from the hate rhetoric, as he is likely to do, and reaffirms the suspicious of a lot of moderate independents that he was just pandering to the GOP base all along and wasn't actually a bigot, then he has a real (greater than 50%) shot at winning the general election.
No, Hillary is clearly following in Bill's footsteps on the copyright and trade issues the GP referenced, what with her support for the TPP and all. Where the GP errs is in failing to recognize it as a bad thing!
It should be abundantly clear by now that Trump is immune to such tactics. Remember, he's been a celebrity asshole just as long as Hillary has been a politician!