Maybe Gates and Greenspan should compare notes. If technology and automation is going to be replacing even more jobs 20 years out, then there really isn't a need for increasing H-1b visas as supply and demand will take care of wages. The more displaced workers there are, the lower wages become. Increasing H-1b visas only serves to hasten the US on the track to a two class system - rich and poor. In either vision, Gates or Greenspan, that is bound to happen. But even if they are both wrong, the current political climate is pushing the US that way.
That's the same eugenic push a certain german chancellor pushed with his master race
I always find it interesting how Germany is pointed at as an example of eugenics when the US started it several decades prior to Germany. In fact, it was the US programs which inspired Germany.
There were even suggestions in the early 1900's, in the US, to use gas chambers to weed out the undesirables.
But don't let reality get in the way. It was those evil Nazis that started it.
Well, Meucci invented the telephone before Bell, but Bell gets the credit. Often it's not the ones who started something like eugenics, but the ones who took it to a whole new level. The US may have been involved in eugenics, but the Nazis institutionalized it.
Science for the common good only existed for a short time in the mid to late 20th century, prior to that, science, like the arts, was financed by various patrons. One only needs to look at the battle between Tesla and Edision to realize that one of the biggest "inventions" that change the world in the past 100 years or so, wasn't a government project.
Technology research, at least those not related to the military, have rarely been funded on the public dime, except for the past 50 years.
Why don't you do it if you think that takes priority? Is it because you're too busy karma whoring, shitposting, and desperately scrambling to compete with Taco Cowboy about who can post or semi-coherent crap the highest uo on the page?
Anyway, dipshits, this is here because it deals with transhumanism, which is singularity stuff, which works the tech angle as much as is possible without having also having any scientific substance.
The technological singualrity will never happen, at least not until us regular humans get over greed and egoism. Until then, transhumanists are just one more group saying they know what's best for the rest of us. Maybe they do or maybe they don't, but religions and various philosophies have been promising that for ever. Why should anybody accept the transhumanist's version of what is best is any better than anybody elses.
One might even argue that it's ultimate goal is to wipe out humanity, replacing it with a new transhuman species. That's the same eugenic push a certain german chancellor pushed with his master race, but for transhumanists, it's not just about altering genetics, but also using nanotechnology and other technologies to surplant the human being.
Yeah, let your human children color a book that ultimately is to indoctrinate them about the lack of value for the human person. That would be good parenting. Of course in a transhuman future, there wouldn't be any children, but that's a whole different discussion.
Not at all. If you have the license, just download one of the torrented pirated versions. They already have done most of the job, sometimes _all_ of it. Why rescanning it?
I think the question was about publishers producing e-books of old books. It's highly unlikely that they are going to use a scanned copy. Usually consumers demand higher quality that a copier is going to make.
Why are there more old songs online than old e-books? That's simple, songs are in a format readily convertable to digital. Old masters, just go through an analog to digital conversion that can be pretty much automated. Most don't even need that as they were converted to digital when CDs first came on the scened.
Books, on the other hand, particularly prior to electronic publishing often dealt with paper manuscripts. Those have to be scanned and converted, a much more labor intensive process. Even if they had been converted to an electronic format for editing and typesetting purposes and that format still exists, it needs to be converted into something modern PCs and tablets can read.
While the latter conversion is less labor intensive than converting paper manuscripts, one then needs to look at the potential market. There are many more buyers for an early Frank Sinatra recording than there are for a copy of The Red Pony. Unless there is demand for a product, an old book, in this case, suppliers won't produce it. And, as a corollary, even if there is demand, it has to be at a price point that is profitable for the supplier.
In the end, the answer to the question of "Why are there more old songs online than old e-books?" is simple economics.
How is it "an otherwise legal use of the product"? The Windows operating system and the Google Play Store application are copyrighted.
ASUS wasn't installing illegal copies of the product, they had licenses for both. As such, unless the license states you can't install on a system with any other OS, which it does not, then how was it illegal? I can buy an ASUS with Windows 8 and I can buy one with Android. Evidently, I can't buy one that lets me choose Windows 8 or Android at boot time.
ASUS conceded, not because of legality, but because of business relationships with the two software giants. If they were dual booting debian and fedora and were told to stop, they would have flipped them a bird because debian and fedora don't heavily influence their bottom line. Microsoft and Google, however, do, and used their vast market power to force ASUS into submission or face the consequences. It's bad enough for one company too big to fail to do it, but for two of them to gang up and do it, seems like the US Justice department should be investigating what happened. Oh, wait, Microsoft and Google already control the USJ department.
If you re-read the OP, the premise of that comment was since they both did the same thing why have them both? There are lots of projects that both do the same thing, for instance upstart and systemd. Using that rationale, which ever one shipped first should be the one everybody uses.
I never said anything against Mir, as a matter of fact, my sarcastic remark was exactly the opposite of what you assume I was saying. In plain english, I was arguing that the OP was wrong and that Wayland and Mir can happily coexist until such time the market decides which is the preferred display manager, again, just like what happened with upstart and systemd.
Also, unless I misread the OP, the AC wasn't comparing/contrasting Wayland or Mir with X windows, but with each other. Based on that interpretation, I made my comment. In reality, even if the comparison was with X windows, I would feel the same way. Just because something is established doesn't mean people shouldn't look at improving upon it. After all, not many are driving Model T's anymore (although I do drive a 1972 VW).
[1] All the talk about the ocean being huge is true, but I bet if you have high res pictures of the areas for that period, it's not going to be that hard to figure out where it crashed. Start from a known position and time, find out which pic and where, then follow it. It's only a few trillion square metres after all, those billions of dollars should be able to buy some decent terapixel imaging systems;).
Problem is that spy satellites, are expensive and as such probably weren't over the Indian Ocean taking pictures of the water when the plane was supposedly flying in that area. That could be moved and take pictures now, but if the plane crashed or landed in the water, it would have sunk by now. So, even if a spy satellite could read a newspaper from orbit, it would take a lot of newspaper sized images to cover the search area and a lot of manpower to look at them all.
Why? I think we need both to compete. Some of the early limitations proposed in Wayland were frankly, utter shit, and it was only pressure to lift their game that led to them being dropped.
People seem happy that the upstart/systemd decision has been made. I imagine they will be happy when the Wayland/Mir decision is, too. We don't need both to compete, we already have X for that.
Why? Given they both solve the same problem, but one has wide support and has shipped on devices, what use is the other?
If this is true then why even have Wayland? It solves pretty much the same problems that X had already solved. We could have simply modified X.
If Wayland is justified then so is Mir.
Hell, if that's the approach you want to take, why even have a computer? It solves pretty much the same problems that pencil and paper had already solved. Why have pencil and paper? It pretty much solves the same problems cuniform tablets had already solved.
I assume you really can see the difference between a new display server and antiquated X, but maybe not. I'll chalk it up to the state of the school system in today's world. Oh, wait, why even bother having a school system? It solves pretty much the same problems that the guild system did.
Taking a Tesla and adding all of the weight from making it bullet and bomb proof would probably severly limit the range it could go, even if additional battery backs were added. If they want to go green, or at least greener, propane powered would make more sense, or better yet, hydrogen powered. Of course the energy required to produce enough hydrogen to use as a fuel would probably be greater than the energy used via conventional fuel (not much economy of scale for 1 vehicle).
Actually, Aura has been part of the Chromium project for quite some time, so it isn't any darker today, than it was yesterday, or even last year or two. Most likely, this has more to do with ChromiumOS than Chromium/Chrome.
But, you do realize that this story starts with Timothy mentioning what a small percentage of the OS community thinks, and doesn't mention a somewhat more likely possibility - that Google is dissatisfied with the GTK, finds it very difficult to work within its limits, and doesn't feel it can get any cooperation from the GTK designers. If that is how Google feels, then the AC would probably say Google's position is reasonable. I tend to agree with that, myself. But, what's the point of asking the AC to defend his position, when that same position was totally left out of Timothy's original summary, and the position of those who don't see any problems with the GTK is presented as the default of the whole open source community?
That is pure speculation. Google hasn't stated why they are switching, just that they are switching. A just as valid reason could be that since Aura's purpose is to produce a new desktop window manager and shell environment with modern capabilities. The UI must offer rich visuals, large-scale animated transitions and effects that can be produced only with the assistance of hardware acceleration., that it simply fits in better with their vision for Chromebooks or something they want to do with android. If your vision is that your browser is the desktop, then it makes sense to use Aura which is its own windowmanager that includes acceleration and compositing.
Aura has been part of the Chromium project for quite some time. Initially, it was Windows specific. It looks like it is now working on Linux (and I assume OS X), too.
I can't take credit for this, it's a quote from Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman.
Payments are up through mostly automatic processes: People are out of work due to the financial industry shenanigans, so unemployment checks are written, more people end up on Medicare or SNAP (nee food stamps), and because of the aging population, more people on Social Security. Obamacare barely has had any effect
I've already posted, so I can't mod you up, but you and Krugman are 100% correct. In addition, as the economy sluggishly recovers, the need for unemployment and hopfully SNAP will decrease (depends on whether those job creators create jobs that have a living wage or not). Also, there has been a significant increase in retirees in the past 10 years from retiring baby boomers. By 2025, the tail end of the baby boomers will have reached retirement age and the numbers will start dropping. By 2045, they will be dropping as quickly as they shot up. So, that, too, will automatically resolve itself.
The subsidies for Obamacare didn't even start to 2014 and the data is only upto 2013, so it's hard to see how Obamacare had any impact on transfer payments. Transfers for military personnel, however, are way up, predominately because we have been at war since just after the millenium occured.
In short, articles like the one linked to are full of facts, but depending on how one links those facts together determines whether or not they are true. For instance, in midwest, between 1990 and 2000 there was a decrease in violent crime. Also between 1990 and 2000, there was an increase in the consumption of McDonald's french fries. Both of those are facts. However, linking them together to imply one caused the other would be anything but true.
The same can be said for taking the raw data and making unsubstantiated links.
From the article: An IBD analysis found that the richest 1% of Americans, in fact, receive roughly $10 billion each year in federal checks. The article is silent on say the next 10%, but it is likely that they are getting federal subsidies, too.
The article also states that from 1991 to 2013, the payments as a percentage of GDP went from 10% to 15%. Digging further into the 5% increase, 2% or just less than 1/2, is from the explosion in baby boomers retiring and collecting social security and medicare and another 1% from the extension of federal unemployment. Put differently, 3% of the 5% increase is from situations that are not permanent (the plethora of baby boomers will resolve itself in the next two decades and the extended unemployment benefits are scheduled to expire).
Other items that are included in the numbers are military benefits, which might be one reason the government is looking at scaling back the size of the military. Also, 1/3 of the amounts paid out are in the form of grants. Those grants aren't going to welfare recipients.
The US government does need to live within its means, but articles (and summaries) like this only serve the purpose of enraging people and then blaming the wrong people. Cutting taxes while fighting two wars has more to do with these numbers than increasing transfer payments. Even if these payments were all welfare payments, the government is running huge deficits. It would make sense to concentrate on the other 85% of government spending than the 15%.
The actual line was "Math is hard, let's go shopping!"
Actually, the line was actually "Math class is tough." "Let's go shopping" was a totally different phrase and not part of the math one. Another was something like "Ooh, I like perfume," and several others. The controversy for feminists was not initially that "Math class is tough" it was that "Math class is tough" followed by one of the "girly" statements. If Barbie had said "Math class is tough" but was followed with "But it beats chemistry" there probably wouldn't have been a controversy at all, except, maybe for chemists.
Technically if you do that, you don't have to pay any tax, but the tax authorities would immediate judge this as an attempt to bypass taxes and you would be ordered to pay the tax doubled. This applies to practically all laws and the ways that courts interpret them. Most Americans probably think this is stupid, since they see possible abuse. However, this hasn't materialized in Finland.
In the US, the scenario you described would be called tax evasion and you would be charged by the IRS. Even in Finland, I am sure there are illegal ways to do things and legal ways to do things. Surely, every time you buy something from the store you aren't charged for larceny because it is illegal to steal and you circumvented that law!
Technically, what BP is doing is legal under the law. The correct solution, if the US doesn't like it, is to change the law.
How would mentioning a valid judicial activity with a long and honorable history put you in contempt? They're still free to put you on the jury, in fact the defense might even be in favor, if the prosecution chooses to kick you out of the pool because you happen to know the full extent of your legal obligations that's their business.
Acting as a smart ass will put you in contempt. Simply put, contempt is anything the judge determines to be disrespectful or disobedient. Unless you are an attorney or somebody with a background in law, blurting out jury nullification will probably be viewed poorly by the judge as it isn't in the common vernacular. OTOH, if you made a statement like, "I think this is a bad law" or "This law doesn't even seem right" then you would probably be okay. Of course, you are free to try, but be prepared to answer the judge's question on the theory and history of nullification. If you fail and don't really have a good and convincing understanding of it, then you will probably be found in contempt.
No, but it can be good enough for a jury to find them non-guilty despite the facts - a tradition that extends throughout US history and long before.
Remember, your obligation as a juror is not just to judge the facts of the case, but to ensure that justice is served. Despite the law if necessary. see Jury Nullification for more information.
Want to get out of jury duty, say the words "jury nullification".
That is only one possible outcome. Another would be a free night in jail for contempt.
That worked so well for GnutTLS. Thousands of eyes have looked over that code for years, and missed it. Open source didn't live up to it's hype in this case.
How do you know there was a problem with GnuTLS? Oh, yeah, Red Hat developers detected it in the source code, that by the way, the only reason they had was because it was open source. It would seem that the system worked exactly as planned and open source does indeed live up to its hype.
A lot of people are assuming this is a troll or some sort of joke. That says a lot about how helpful people are! It sounds like you have familiarity with a number of software products, most likely all Microsoft. To strengthen that, you could take some courses at a community college. You could also volunteer some of your services for your local church or other nonprofit to build a resume.
However, you might want to consider that instead of IT support, in the private sector, going the training route. With your teaching background, many corporations would hire you. In addition, with your current computer background, they could hire you to teach software classes to their employees. Even if you are wanting to get out of teaching and into support, such a path would get your foot in the door and allow you to establish connections, gain experience and pick up additional skills before making the switch.
Doesn't an export restriction mean you can't send goods to a restricted country? If somebody in Cuba sends code to Redhat, in the US, that would seem to be an import. There is an easy solution, even if it does apply. Said developer just needs to upload it to a server in a friendly country without the restriction and Redhat get it from there. In such cases, usually France is the go between.
The canabinoids of Marijuana, alone, have a number of apparent (but not adequately researhed) benefits:
- They appear to be a specific treatment for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (which, itself, seems to be a result of undermeidcation for pain - also driven by the "drug war").
- Canabinoids (including at least one which does not produce a substantial "high") also appear to be a successful treatment for a debilitating form of childhood epilepsy.
- Parkinson's disease eventually kills, not directly through loss of dopamine, but by the body's attempt to compensate for it by fouling up a system that uses the recently discovered endocanabinoids as neurotransmitters. (These are the chemicals that THC and its relatives mimic, much as opioids mimic endorphins.) This ends up with loss of memory and loss of appetite, and the victim starves herself to death. Canabinoids may help alleviate this and/or prolong life, (if only by reducing the tendency to self-starvation by inducing "the munchies").
- Canabinoids have been claimed to arrest the progress of several cancers, including a brain cancer.d
- Canabinoids have long been used for reducing the nausea of chemotherapy, easing self-starvation in cancer patients. (Similarly with side-effects of anti-AIDS drug coctails.)
I could go on.
If canabinoids are so useful, then why not produce them in a pill, instead of smoking the marijuana. Oh, wait, they did, and in clinical trials, they weren't proven very effective. Which begs the question as to whether the canabinoids are effective or the placebo effect is what is being observed. Even if there is some effectiveness, the question then should be is it more effective than current medications/treatments?
For instance 2-bromo-LSD, a derivative of LSD is very effective for alleviating migraines and cluster headaches. Do they prescribe it for everybody? No, it is a last use drug because of other side effects (BOL is not a hallucinogenic like straight LSD). For 95% of migraine and cluster headache suffers, the standard treatments apply because they are effective.
You mention canabinoids as a treatment for some types of childhood epilepsy. Yet, the only support for that and most other "treatments" is anecdotal. When actual clinical trials are performed, the results do not tend to support the claims.
Yes the federal government banned LSD, but not because it made people feel good. There was plenty of research into it and it was determined that the good did not outweigh the bad. That said, the federal government only has control over the US. Foreign governments also banned it, even those that are much more liberal with drug policy.
I am sure you could go on, but what is needed is scientific proof of the effectiveness of these compounds, not anecdotal.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe Gates and Greenspan should compare notes. If technology and automation is going to be replacing even more jobs 20 years out, then there really isn't a need for increasing H-1b visas as supply and demand will take care of wages. The more displaced workers there are, the lower wages become. Increasing H-1b visas only serves to hasten the US on the track to a two class system - rich and poor. In either vision, Gates or Greenspan, that is bound to happen. But even if they are both wrong, the current political climate is pushing the US that way.
That's the same eugenic push a certain german chancellor pushed with his master race
I always find it interesting how Germany is pointed at as an example of eugenics when the US started it several decades prior to Germany. In fact, it was the US programs which inspired Germany.
There were even suggestions in the early 1900's, in the US, to use gas chambers to weed out the undesirables.
But don't let reality get in the way. It was those evil Nazis that started it.
Well, Meucci invented the telephone before Bell, but Bell gets the credit. Often it's not the ones who started something like eugenics, but the ones who took it to a whole new level. The US may have been involved in eugenics, but the Nazis institutionalized it.
Science for the common good only existed for a short time in the mid to late 20th century, prior to that, science, like the arts, was financed by various patrons. One only needs to look at the battle between Tesla and Edision to realize that one of the biggest "inventions" that change the world in the past 100 years or so, wasn't a government project.
Technology research, at least those not related to the military, have rarely been funded on the public dime, except for the past 50 years.
Why don't you do it if you think that takes priority? Is it because you're too busy karma whoring, shitposting, and desperately scrambling to compete with Taco Cowboy about who can post or semi-coherent crap the highest uo on the page?
Anyway, dipshits, this is here because it deals with transhumanism, which is singularity stuff, which works the tech angle as much as is possible without having also having any scientific substance.
The technological singualrity will never happen, at least not until us regular humans get over greed and egoism. Until then, transhumanists are just one more group saying they know what's best for the rest of us. Maybe they do or maybe they don't, but religions and various philosophies have been promising that for ever. Why should anybody accept the transhumanist's version of what is best is any better than anybody elses.
One might even argue that it's ultimate goal is to wipe out humanity, replacing it with a new transhuman species. That's the same eugenic push a certain german chancellor pushed with his master race, but for transhumanists, it's not just about altering genetics, but also using nanotechnology and other technologies to surplant the human being.
Yeah, let your human children color a book that ultimately is to indoctrinate them about the lack of value for the human person. That would be good parenting. Of course in a transhuman future, there wouldn't be any children, but that's a whole different discussion.
Not at all. If you have the license, just download one of the torrented pirated versions.
They already have done most of the job, sometimes _all_ of it.
Why rescanning it?
I think the question was about publishers producing e-books of old books. It's highly unlikely that they are going to use a scanned copy. Usually consumers demand higher quality that a copier is going to make.
Why are there more old songs online than old e-books? That's simple, songs are in a format readily convertable to digital. Old masters, just go through an analog to digital conversion that can be pretty much automated. Most don't even need that as they were converted to digital when CDs first came on the scened.
Books, on the other hand, particularly prior to electronic publishing often dealt with paper manuscripts. Those have to be scanned and converted, a much more labor intensive process. Even if they had been converted to an electronic format for editing and typesetting purposes and that format still exists, it needs to be converted into something modern PCs and tablets can read.
While the latter conversion is less labor intensive than converting paper manuscripts, one then needs to look at the potential market. There are many more buyers for an early Frank Sinatra recording than there are for a copy of The Red Pony. Unless there is demand for a product, an old book, in this case, suppliers won't produce it. And, as a corollary, even if there is demand, it has to be at a price point that is profitable for the supplier.
In the end, the answer to the question of "Why are there more old songs online than old e-books?" is simple economics.
How is it "an otherwise legal use of the product"? The Windows operating system and the Google Play Store application are copyrighted.
ASUS wasn't installing illegal copies of the product, they had licenses for both. As such, unless the license states you can't install on a system with any other OS, which it does not, then how was it illegal? I can buy an ASUS with Windows 8 and I can buy one with Android. Evidently, I can't buy one that lets me choose Windows 8 or Android at boot time.
ASUS conceded, not because of legality, but because of business relationships with the two software giants. If they were dual booting debian and fedora and were told to stop, they would have flipped them a bird because debian and fedora don't heavily influence their bottom line. Microsoft and Google, however, do, and used their vast market power to force ASUS into submission or face the consequences. It's bad enough for one company too big to fail to do it, but for two of them to gang up and do it, seems like the US Justice department should be investigating what happened. Oh, wait, Microsoft and Google already control the USJ department.
If you re-read the OP, the premise of that comment was since they both did the same thing why have them both? There are lots of projects that both do the same thing, for instance upstart and systemd. Using that rationale, which ever one shipped first should be the one everybody uses.
I never said anything against Mir, as a matter of fact, my sarcastic remark was exactly the opposite of what you assume I was saying. In plain english, I was arguing that the OP was wrong and that Wayland and Mir can happily coexist until such time the market decides which is the preferred display manager, again, just like what happened with upstart and systemd.
Also, unless I misread the OP, the AC wasn't comparing/contrasting Wayland or Mir with X windows, but with each other. Based on that interpretation, I made my comment. In reality, even if the comparison was with X windows, I would feel the same way. Just because something is established doesn't mean people shouldn't look at improving upon it. After all, not many are driving Model T's anymore (although I do drive a 1972 VW).
[1] All the talk about the ocean being huge is true, but I bet if you have high res pictures of the areas for that period, it's not going to be that hard to figure out where it crashed. Start from a known position and time, find out which pic and where, then follow it. It's only a few trillion square metres after all, those billions of dollars should be able to buy some decent terapixel imaging systems ;).
Problem is that spy satellites, are expensive and as such probably weren't over the Indian Ocean taking pictures of the water when the plane was supposedly flying in that area. That could be moved and take pictures now, but if the plane crashed or landed in the water, it would have sunk by now. So, even if a spy satellite could read a newspaper from orbit, it would take a lot of newspaper sized images to cover the search area and a lot of manpower to look at them all.
Why?
I think we need both to compete. Some of the early limitations proposed in Wayland were frankly, utter shit, and it was only pressure to lift their game that led to them being dropped.
People seem happy that the upstart/systemd decision has been made. I imagine they will be happy when the Wayland/Mir decision is, too. We don't need both to compete, we already have X for that.
If this is true then why even have Wayland? It solves pretty much the same problems that X had already solved. We could have simply modified X.
If Wayland is justified then so is Mir.
Hell, if that's the approach you want to take, why even have a computer? It solves pretty much the same problems that pencil and paper had already solved. Why have pencil and paper? It pretty much solves the same problems cuniform tablets had already solved.
I assume you really can see the difference between a new display server and antiquated X, but maybe not. I'll chalk it up to the state of the school system in today's world. Oh, wait, why even bother having a school system? It solves pretty much the same problems that the guild system did.
Taking a Tesla and adding all of the weight from making it bullet and bomb proof would probably severly limit the range it could go, even if additional battery backs were added. If they want to go green, or at least greener, propane powered would make more sense, or better yet, hydrogen powered. Of course the energy required to produce enough hydrogen to use as a fuel would probably be greater than the energy used via conventional fuel (not much economy of scale for 1 vehicle).
Is looking darker and darker every year
Actually, Aura has been part of the Chromium project for quite some time, so it isn't any darker today, than it was yesterday, or even last year or two. Most likely, this has more to do with ChromiumOS than Chromium/Chrome.
Here's the link: http://www.chromium.org/develo...
But, you do realize that this story starts with Timothy mentioning what a small percentage of the OS community thinks, and doesn't mention a somewhat more likely possibility - that Google is dissatisfied with the GTK, finds it very difficult to work within its limits, and doesn't feel it can get any cooperation from the GTK designers. If that is how Google feels, then the AC would probably say Google's position is reasonable. I tend to agree with that, myself. But, what's the point of asking the AC to defend his position, when that same position was totally left out of Timothy's original summary, and the position of those who don't see any problems with the GTK is presented as the default of the whole open source community?
That is pure speculation. Google hasn't stated why they are switching, just that they are switching. A just as valid reason could be that since Aura's purpose is to produce a new desktop window manager and shell environment with modern capabilities. The UI must offer rich visuals, large-scale animated transitions and effects that can be produced only with the assistance of hardware acceleration., that it simply fits in better with their vision for Chromebooks or something they want to do with android. If your vision is that your browser is the desktop, then it makes sense to use Aura which is its own windowmanager that includes acceleration and compositing.
Aura has been part of the Chromium project for quite some time. Initially, it was Windows specific. It looks like it is now working on Linux (and I assume OS X), too.
I can't take credit for this, it's a quote from Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman.
Payments are up through mostly automatic processes: People are out of work due to the financial industry shenanigans, so unemployment checks are written, more people end up on Medicare or SNAP (nee food stamps), and because of the aging population, more people on Social Security. Obamacare barely has had any effect
I've already posted, so I can't mod you up, but you and Krugman are 100% correct. In addition, as the economy sluggishly recovers, the need for unemployment and hopfully SNAP will decrease (depends on whether those job creators create jobs that have a living wage or not). Also, there has been a significant increase in retirees in the past 10 years from retiring baby boomers. By 2025, the tail end of the baby boomers will have reached retirement age and the numbers will start dropping. By 2045, they will be dropping as quickly as they shot up. So, that, too, will automatically resolve itself.
The subsidies for Obamacare didn't even start to 2014 and the data is only upto 2013, so it's hard to see how Obamacare had any impact on transfer payments. Transfers for military personnel, however, are way up, predominately because we have been at war since just after the millenium occured.
In short, articles like the one linked to are full of facts, but depending on how one links those facts together determines whether or not they are true. For instance, in midwest, between 1990 and 2000 there was a decrease in violent crime. Also between 1990 and 2000, there was an increase in the consumption of McDonald's french fries. Both of those are facts. However, linking them together to imply one caused the other would be anything but true.
The same can be said for taking the raw data and making unsubstantiated links.
From the article: An IBD analysis found that the richest 1% of Americans, in fact, receive roughly $10 billion each year in federal checks. The article is silent on say the next 10%, but it is likely that they are getting federal subsidies, too.
The article also states that from 1991 to 2013, the payments as a percentage of GDP went from 10% to 15%. Digging further into the 5% increase, 2% or just less than 1/2, is from the explosion in baby boomers retiring and collecting social security and medicare and another 1% from the extension of federal unemployment. Put differently, 3% of the 5% increase is from situations that are not permanent (the plethora of baby boomers will resolve itself in the next two decades and the extended unemployment benefits are scheduled to expire).
Other items that are included in the numbers are military benefits, which might be one reason the government is looking at scaling back the size of the military. Also, 1/3 of the amounts paid out are in the form of grants. Those grants aren't going to welfare recipients.
The US government does need to live within its means, but articles (and summaries) like this only serve the purpose of enraging people and then blaming the wrong people. Cutting taxes while fighting two wars has more to do with these numbers than increasing transfer payments. Even if these payments were all welfare payments, the government is running huge deficits. It would make sense to concentrate on the other 85% of government spending than the 15%.
The actual line was "Math is hard, let's go shopping!"
Actually, the line was actually "Math class is tough." "Let's go shopping" was a totally different phrase and not part of the math one. Another was something like "Ooh, I like perfume," and several others. The controversy for feminists was not initially that "Math class is tough" it was that "Math class is tough" followed by one of the "girly" statements. If Barbie had said "Math class is tough" but was followed with "But it beats chemistry" there probably wouldn't have been a controversy at all, except, maybe for chemists.
Mattel released a talking Barbie doll that would say "Math class is tough!" That sounds like a pretty deliberate bias.
Technically if you do that, you don't have to pay any tax, but the tax authorities would immediate judge this as an attempt to bypass taxes and you would be ordered to pay the tax doubled. This applies to practically all laws and the ways that courts interpret them. Most Americans probably think this is stupid, since they see possible abuse. However, this hasn't materialized in Finland.
In the US, the scenario you described would be called tax evasion and you would be charged by the IRS. Even in Finland, I am sure there are illegal ways to do things and legal ways to do things. Surely, every time you buy something from the store you aren't charged for larceny because it is illegal to steal and you circumvented that law!
Technically, what BP is doing is legal under the law. The correct solution, if the US doesn't like it, is to change the law.
How would mentioning a valid judicial activity with a long and honorable history put you in contempt? They're still free to put you on the jury, in fact the defense might even be in favor, if the prosecution chooses to kick you out of the pool because you happen to know the full extent of your legal obligations that's their business.
Acting as a smart ass will put you in contempt. Simply put, contempt is anything the judge determines to be disrespectful or disobedient. Unless you are an attorney or somebody with a background in law, blurting out jury nullification will probably be viewed poorly by the judge as it isn't in the common vernacular. OTOH, if you made a statement like, "I think this is a bad law" or "This law doesn't even seem right" then you would probably be okay. Of course, you are free to try, but be prepared to answer the judge's question on the theory and history of nullification. If you fail and don't really have a good and convincing understanding of it, then you will probably be found in contempt.
No, but it can be good enough for a jury to find them non-guilty despite the facts - a tradition that extends throughout US history and long before.
Remember, your obligation as a juror is not just to judge the facts of the case, but to ensure that justice is served. Despite the law if necessary. see Jury Nullification for more information.
Want to get out of jury duty, say the words "jury nullification".
That is only one possible outcome. Another would be a free night in jail for contempt.
That worked so well for GnutTLS. Thousands of eyes have looked over that code for years, and missed it. Open source didn't live up to it's hype in this case.
How do you know there was a problem with GnuTLS? Oh, yeah, Red Hat developers detected it in the source code, that by the way, the only reason they had was because it was open source. It would seem that the system worked exactly as planned and open source does indeed live up to its hype.
A lot of people are assuming this is a troll or some sort of joke. That says a lot about how helpful people are! It sounds like you have familiarity with a number of software products, most likely all Microsoft. To strengthen that, you could take some courses at a community college. You could also volunteer some of your services for your local church or other nonprofit to build a resume.
However, you might want to consider that instead of IT support, in the private sector, going the training route. With your teaching background, many corporations would hire you. In addition, with your current computer background, they could hire you to teach software classes to their employees. Even if you are wanting to get out of teaching and into support, such a path would get your foot in the door and allow you to establish connections, gain experience and pick up additional skills before making the switch.
Doesn't an export restriction mean you can't send goods to a restricted country? If somebody in Cuba sends code to Redhat, in the US, that would seem to be an import. There is an easy solution, even if it does apply. Said developer just needs to upload it to a server in a friendly country without the restriction and Redhat get it from there. In such cases, usually France is the go between.
The canabinoids of Marijuana, alone, have a number of apparent (but not adequately researhed) benefits:
- They appear to be a specific treatment for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (which, itself, seems to be a result of undermeidcation for pain - also driven by the "drug war").
- Canabinoids (including at least one which does not produce a substantial "high") also appear to be a successful treatment for a debilitating form of childhood epilepsy.
- Parkinson's disease eventually kills, not directly through loss of dopamine, but by the body's attempt to compensate for it by fouling up a system that uses the recently discovered endocanabinoids as neurotransmitters. (These are the chemicals that THC and its relatives mimic, much as opioids mimic endorphins.) This ends up with loss of memory and loss of appetite, and the victim starves herself to death. Canabinoids may help alleviate this and/or prolong life, (if only by reducing the tendency to self-starvation by inducing "the munchies").
- Canabinoids have been claimed to arrest the progress of several cancers, including a brain cancer.d
- Canabinoids have long been used for reducing the nausea of chemotherapy, easing self-starvation in cancer patients. (Similarly with side-effects of anti-AIDS drug coctails.)
I could go on.
If canabinoids are so useful, then why not produce them in a pill, instead of smoking the marijuana. Oh, wait, they did, and in clinical trials, they weren't proven very effective. Which begs the question as to whether the canabinoids are effective or the placebo effect is what is being observed. Even if there is some effectiveness, the question then should be is it more effective than current medications/treatments?
For instance 2-bromo-LSD, a derivative of LSD is very effective for alleviating migraines and cluster headaches. Do they prescribe it for everybody? No, it is a last use drug because of other side effects (BOL is not a hallucinogenic like straight LSD). For 95% of migraine and cluster headache suffers, the standard treatments apply because they are effective.
You mention canabinoids as a treatment for some types of childhood epilepsy. Yet, the only support for that and most other "treatments" is anecdotal. When actual clinical trials are performed, the results do not tend to support the claims.
Yes the federal government banned LSD, but not because it made people feel good. There was plenty of research into it and it was determined that the good did not outweigh the bad. That said, the federal government only has control over the US. Foreign governments also banned it, even those that are much more liberal with drug policy.
I am sure you could go on, but what is needed is scientific proof of the effectiveness of these compounds, not anecdotal.