Most everybody that wants a Mac already has one. If they want a new one, well, there isn't one. No new Mac Pro in three years. Same for Mac minis and the last "upgrade" was actually a downgrade. No new iMac in two. Tim Cook said last year he was expecting for people to upgrade their Macs every three years, but the sad truth is that three years is up for many people and the Mac on sale is the one they already have or so close to it that there's no reason to upgrade unless it's dead. Add in that the newer models may be less upgradable than the ones they already have and that's less incentive to get a newer Mac. I'm still on my 2008 Mac Pro because it still works and I'm certainly not going to shell out top dollar for a three year old machine. i thought I might even go down to an iMac, but they're almost as old.
Of course Musk isn't going to start digging tunnels next month. I can scarcely begin to imagine how much work it involves to get permission, permits, acquire land, and the million-and-one other things you have to do before even breaking the sod.
The real question is if he will be building his own boring machines. There's already a lot of tunnels being built using boring machines and they are not made in the US. Does he think that he can improve on the machinery like he did rockets and create another company? Tunnels will be important to both hyperloop and Mars colonies. He may just have the idea and people that he can provide that service to his own projects and produce another company out of it.
He is trying to build a better buggy whip. The solution to traffic congestion is not more infrastructure capacity, but using the capacity we have more efficiently.
I think you misunderstand. On Mars, tunnels will be the efficient infrastructure that will need to be built anyway.
I like what someone suggested above- cost is determined based on your grade point average. Maintain all A's and it's free. Have all C's or a C average and you pay full price. If you can't maintain a high grade, perhaps you shouldn't be in school.
I'd disagree. Some people do better in college than high school, some don't. Some do better in academia than the "real world", and some don't. Still, the more educated a nations workers are, the more valuable product they can manufacture. This is the limiting factor of our economy and any barrier that keeps a nation from having the most educated workforce will be hurting that economy. Grades are a good metric, but hardly representative of what a person can actually contribute once outside of the school system. C's are average. The average person should be able to get through school by default if you want your economy to work at that level.
In 1980 that was pretty amazing, now most Colleges have dual enrolment programs so High School Students can get College credits before they graduate. The confidence in public education has deteriorated to the point a High School Graduate with out being able to check "Some College" on a job app is really in YMMV territory..
I tend to look at it another way. Workers with higher education can make products that have more value than those that have less education. We have pretty much passed the point of where our society really has a use for what was considered a High School Education with no skills. Automation has made it that most manual jobs are now done by million dollar machines that may be easy to use but need to be entrusted to somebody capable enough to not do something stupid. Some college is needed because we no longer have an economy that can make use relativley unskilled and untested workers. While education of the population does not mean a greater economy by default, it is the limiting factor. Eventually, we'll be at the point proposed by ST:TNG with the five year old running from his parents screaming "I don't want to do my calculus homework!"
Yes, well, Trump is not a strong president. You can see that in his constant references to himself as "smart" and going ballistic over every slight. He's a small-minded narcissist with the attention span of gnat.
I'm just waiting to see what happens when he gets around to the actual job of being President and has to interface with the heads of state of all the other countries in the world. Even if he is a deal maker, I don't see him as a friend maker, and many of the deals he makes will probably be short term gain, long term loss. Either that, or he'll just have his Secretary of State do everything but show up to state dinners.
He did that because he HAD to. Otherwise, he starts a small scale war where the state then makes most activities that might support enforcing the federal law illegal.
Naw, what would happen from what I inferred here in Seattle when the city and state police were discussing the future of legalization is that if the Feds wanted to press charges, then they could expect for Feds to be the ones arresting, detaining, and judging all these cases. If the Feds put up a stink, no doubt there would be enough small time possession cases pressed to tie up the Fed courts for years in just a few weeks. One of the reasons the state was happy to get rid of the laws was the expense to the legal system but they'd just shuffle everything to Fed courts and jails if they had to.
So, two wrongs make a right and we should prove ourselves to be just as immature as the other political party? Prove that the DNC is better than that, and you will have more possibility of winning the next election, probe that you are just as bad, and lose yet again.
If it was wrong for the RNC to not work with Obama, how can it be right to not work with Trump?
Hey, don't ask me. I'm a Libertarian that thinks that the current political polarization of the US is the greatest threat to our country. I'm just stating it as what seems to be a factual observation or perhaps laconic humor at best.
No, he won because the Democratic Party is too busy tripping over their hypocritical statements and actions. You know, the party of inclusion that can't wait to have 60+ sitting congresspersons "boycott" the inauguration of the president that they now have to work with. Their candidate for president was even there, and tweeting about working together. Yet these petty and petulant asshats can't see that the inauguration is a celebration of the institution, and not of the man being sworn in.
The divisiveness only continues to get worse as long as these douchebags can't see that they are the ones perpetuating the problem.
I'm sure that the Democrats will show all the support and understanding to Trump that the Republicans showed to Obama.
By the way they are starting (by boycotting the inauguration), I think they are attempting to one-up the Republicans on this front...
Apparently Romney and other Republicans also boycotted Obama's inauguration, apparently for the specific purpose of planning obstruction to anything he was going to do. Still trying to hunt down specifics though, but it hardly seems they are doing anything surprising.
As a European (from Finland, and a Hitchensian socialist and anti-theist), I've felt the policies of secretary of state Clinton on my daily life, and am convinced she's a warmonger. I haven't gotten that vibe from Trump. If anything, he won't meddle in middle eastern conflicts trying to change governments, and seems in good terms with the greatest nuclear power after the USA. So in terms of nuclear war, or regional wars, I think we'll be better off.
Well, as an American, Hillary's actions were almost always bipartisan supported cases that were dictated by the realpolitik and US policy and say more about the US than her, I'd say. There were certainly some hold outs that can be shown to be actively avoiding conflict, it's hard to single people out for voting along with the majority. Trump on the other hand does seem to buck the realpolitik and old US policy, but will do things like say we need to be Russia's friend in one statement while saying we'll restart the cold war with them in the next. He has no previous record to determine what he will really do or judge those actions. So far, we've seen that he has no hesitation in breaking long time policy and creating diplomatic issues with countries like China. His tweets, especially those about tv shows and actors, make him seem impulsive and thin skinned. Doesn't really seem that he will do well at avoiding conflict if it comes to some serious brinkmanship.
No, he won because the Democratic Party is too busy tripping over their hypocritical statements and actions. You know, the party of inclusion that can't wait to have 60+ sitting congresspersons "boycott" the inauguration of the president that they now have to work with. Their candidate for president was even there, and tweeting about working together. Yet these petty and petulant asshats can't see that the inauguration is a celebration of the institution, and not of the man being sworn in.
The divisiveness only continues to get worse as long as these douchebags can't see that they are the ones perpetuating the problem.
I'm sure that the Democrats will show all the support and understanding to Trump that the Republicans showed to Obama.
I'm kinda curious about this. Doesn't like, an ambassador's protection extend to the inside of his/her vehicle? Limo or whatever? Probably not a public plane, would need to send one from Russia. Clearly IANAL.
I think so and others in this thread have mentioned it, but in this case the building has multiple office and only one is the embassy, so once outside the office in the hallway, long before the vehicle, they'd technically be in the UK. I was mainly joking about the diplomatic pouch but I seem to remember this actually having been done at one point.
Why would a Japanese toilet have markings in Latin characters? Besides that, that wasn't funny.
Have you seen any Japanese magazines? Latin characters, called romaji, are just 37 more characters to be added to their written symbols already numbering thousands to be used whenever it is more appropriate.
If he had left his inheritance alone, he would be twice as wealthy as he claims to be now.
You're still repeating this crap? Fred Trump didn't die until 1999. The "analysis" you're talking about assumes Donald got Fred's 1999 fortune in the 1970s. Unless Trump also has a time machine, that doesn't work out.
Well, considering that Trump seems to have gotten almost all his money through deals that his father set up and either loaned him the money for or cosigned on the bank loans, then it does seem like all of Trump's fortune is really just his inheritance.
It's only wealth retention when it can be converted to other assets. We're heading for another housing bubble bust as boomers try to sell their homes to the next generation who just doesn't have the money to purchase that particular asset, even at zero interest 30 year mortgages. Those assets will start depreciating damn fast over the next 15-20 years.
I'd say it's already happening. That's literally what those voters that switched sides in places like Ohio were saying "Our houses aren't appreciating in value and our children can't buy them still." There is still growing housing markets, but they are in the urban centers where the jobs and economy are. Small town, or even small city USA where they used to do manufacturing just isn't there anymore. Places like NYC, SF, and Seattle have already forced out boomers with gentrification. My boss has said he couldn't even pay the tax on the house he grew up in because it's value has gone up so high. I've looked back at the housing market where I grew up, flyover state town, and I could buy a house there outright just by writing a check. I could buy ten for what I bought a house for. Now the housing in the hot coastal cities may depreciate also in the next 15-20 years, but it won't be because of the boomers selling.
But seriously, countries will clamp down on immigration and corral/deport their poor until they all die off.
Ya right. Those are the people doing most the jobs that can't be automated, otherwise, they'd already would have been. Get rid of them and born and bred Americans won't stand for being cheap labor and you'll find that they will start crying for a socialist state. Look at the Trump supporters crying for government hand outs in the form of well paying jobs for unskilled workers in remote parts of the US.
I've also heard many stories about how Amazon is to work for in both technical and ground level positions. I don't think I'd want a tech position there, even though they're working on really cool stuff with AWS. Accounts from alumni I've heard describe it as a huge employer who's insanely tight-fisted and never grew up out of startup crunch mode. Their perfect employee is a fresh grad with no previous experience that will say nothing of working nights, weekends, etc. for low pay. I think the phrase "Seattle hundreds" was coined there initially. Add that to the pressure-cooker back stabbing culture I've heard described many times, and I think I'll pass!
This matches what I've heard (although some parts are better than others), however, you must understand that most of their new hires tend to be fresh grads looking to get something on their resume and expect to use it to be gone in 18 months due to their own plans anyway.
Seattle: Together with Microsoft and bad city management, Seattle is a miserable place:
Traffic:Seattle one of the worst U.S. cities for traffic congestion, tied with NYC (March 31, 2015) Quote: "An additional 23 minutes a day spent in traffic may not sound like much, but when it adds up over a year it becomes 89 hours." (Whoever wrote that must be accustomed to Seattle misery. An additional 23 minutes a day spent in traffic sounds HORRIBLE.)
Slow internet: Many areas of Seattle have poor internet connections. See the article, These places have the slowest Internet in the country. (June 25, 2015) Quote: "... Seattle... CenturyLink (CTL) customers trying to access particular sites from 9 p.m. to 10 p.m. will have unbearably slow speeds."
Yes, Seattle is horrible. DO NOT COME HERE! There's nothing to see or do. No work. No food. No housing. um,...did I mention it rains all the time and you'll be depressed and need Vitamin D shots or risk committing suicide? It's a wasteland and at best just the demo version of San Francisco. Move there!
We went other places. You damn New England liberals follow us everywhere. You ruined the north east. You ruined California. You ruined Colorado.
It's like you much up a place so bad that it's unlivable, then decide to move to the region where folks who don't want invasive government moved to when they left you. And then you just pass all the same stupid laws and taxes over until that place is ruined. In 20-30 years, Denver, Colorado will be an insane mecca of taxes and regulations that will be unbearable. Then you liberals will leave and move to Idaho, the Dakotas, etc.
I bet you'll find that the thing "ruining" Denver is people moving from places like Idaho and the Dakotas because the young people are trying to escape socially repressive areas and college graduates are looking to move to a place with an economy, culture and opportunity. I expect the next places to be ruined will be Texas between Austin, Dallas, and Houston and Georgia with Atlanta as they similarly gain people from the surrounding red states.
If a guy leaving his stuff for 5 years in the house of his ex-wife loses the ownership of his former property, I wonder the sanity of claiming to the heirs stuff hidden/abandoned so long ago. How long is too long ago? By that logic, we should start searching the heirs of that roman coins or pirate treasure...
Having just bought a house, it seems to be typical contract condition that everything left in the house at time of purchase now belongs to the new owner. From there, it seems that it would depend if the seller had the right to sell the objects left in the house. Roman coins and pirate treasure probably fall under other laws that the seller could not just ignore. In the case of other people's objects, it probably gets murky. So, if I buy a house and find a box in the wall with stuff in it, it's mine unless some other condition would cause somebody else to have a stronger claim than the seller of the house.
That is what Trump is going to do. He is going to force the politicians to actually do all the things they say.
I wouldn't get your hopes up. Trump has already said they'll probably just get rid of the parts of Obamacare they don't like and keep the ones they do. That wall is never getting built just because of the engineering issues and costs involved. He's not deporting all the undocumented people for the same reason they haven't already been deported, the sheer scale and cost of doing so prevents it from happening. Thing is, his supporters take him seriously, but not literally. They expect him to do something about Obamacare, immigration, illegals, etc, but not exactly what he said he'd do. I see no reason that he would actually try and get the Republicans to hold to their promises any better than he does his own, nor do I think he has enough power with the bully pulpit to make them.
Slashdot Mirror
Should I even mention my TB of photos stuck in Aperture? I'm a Mac fanatic since 1985, but wondering where I might have to go next.
Most everybody that wants a Mac already has one. If they want a new one, well, there isn't one. No new Mac Pro in three years. Same for Mac minis and the last "upgrade" was actually a downgrade. No new iMac in two. Tim Cook said last year he was expecting for people to upgrade their Macs every three years, but the sad truth is that three years is up for many people and the Mac on sale is the one they already have or so close to it that there's no reason to upgrade unless it's dead. Add in that the newer models may be less upgradable than the ones they already have and that's less incentive to get a newer Mac. I'm still on my 2008 Mac Pro because it still works and I'm certainly not going to shell out top dollar for a three year old machine. i thought I might even go down to an iMac, but they're almost as old.
Of course Musk isn't going to start digging tunnels next month. I can scarcely begin to imagine how much work it involves to get permission, permits, acquire land, and the million-and-one other things you have to do before even breaking the sod.
The real question is if he will be building his own boring machines. There's already a lot of tunnels being built using boring machines and they are not made in the US. Does he think that he can improve on the machinery like he did rockets and create another company? Tunnels will be important to both hyperloop and Mars colonies. He may just have the idea and people that he can provide that service to his own projects and produce another company out of it.
He is trying to build a better buggy whip. The solution to traffic congestion is not more infrastructure capacity, but using the capacity we have more efficiently.
I think you misunderstand. On Mars, tunnels will be the efficient infrastructure that will need to be built anyway.
I like what someone suggested above- cost is determined based on your grade point average. Maintain all A's and it's free. Have all C's or a C average and you pay full price. If you can't maintain a high grade, perhaps you shouldn't be in school.
I'd disagree. Some people do better in college than high school, some don't. Some do better in academia than the "real world", and some don't. Still, the more educated a nations workers are, the more valuable product they can manufacture. This is the limiting factor of our economy and any barrier that keeps a nation from having the most educated workforce will be hurting that economy. Grades are a good metric, but hardly representative of what a person can actually contribute once outside of the school system. C's are average. The average person should be able to get through school by default if you want your economy to work at that level.
In 1980 that was pretty amazing, now most Colleges have dual enrolment programs so High School Students can get College credits before they graduate. The confidence in public education has deteriorated to the point a High School Graduate with out being able to check "Some College" on a job app is really in YMMV territory..
I tend to look at it another way. Workers with higher education can make products that have more value than those that have less education. We have pretty much passed the point of where our society really has a use for what was considered a High School Education with no skills. Automation has made it that most manual jobs are now done by million dollar machines that may be easy to use but need to be entrusted to somebody capable enough to not do something stupid. Some college is needed because we no longer have an economy that can make use relativley unskilled and untested workers. While education of the population does not mean a greater economy by default, it is the limiting factor. Eventually, we'll be at the point proposed by ST:TNG with the five year old running from his parents screaming "I don't want to do my calculus homework!"
Yes, well, Trump is not a strong president. You can see that in his constant references to himself as "smart" and going ballistic over every slight. He's a small-minded narcissist with the attention span of gnat.
I'm just waiting to see what happens when he gets around to the actual job of being President and has to interface with the heads of state of all the other countries in the world. Even if he is a deal maker, I don't see him as a friend maker, and many of the deals he makes will probably be short term gain, long term loss. Either that, or he'll just have his Secretary of State do everything but show up to state dinners.
He did that because he HAD to. Otherwise, he starts a small scale war where the state then makes most activities that might support enforcing the federal law illegal.
Naw, what would happen from what I inferred here in Seattle when the city and state police were discussing the future of legalization is that if the Feds wanted to press charges, then they could expect for Feds to be the ones arresting, detaining, and judging all these cases. If the Feds put up a stink, no doubt there would be enough small time possession cases pressed to tie up the Fed courts for years in just a few weeks. One of the reasons the state was happy to get rid of the laws was the expense to the legal system but they'd just shuffle everything to Fed courts and jails if they had to.
So, two wrongs make a right and we should prove ourselves to be just as immature as the other political party? Prove that the DNC is better than that, and you will have more possibility of winning the next election, probe that you are just as bad, and lose yet again.
If it was wrong for the RNC to not work with Obama, how can it be right to not work with Trump?
Hey, don't ask me. I'm a Libertarian that thinks that the current political polarization of the US is the greatest threat to our country. I'm just stating it as what seems to be a factual observation or perhaps laconic humor at best.
No, he won because the Democratic Party is too busy tripping over their hypocritical statements and actions. You know, the party of inclusion that can't wait to have 60+ sitting congresspersons "boycott" the inauguration of the president that they now have to work with. Their candidate for president was even there, and tweeting about working together. Yet these petty and petulant asshats can't see that the inauguration is a celebration of the institution, and not of the man being sworn in.
The divisiveness only continues to get worse as long as these douchebags can't see that they are the ones perpetuating the problem.
I'm sure that the Democrats will show all the support and understanding to Trump that the Republicans showed to Obama.
By the way they are starting (by boycotting the inauguration), I think they are attempting to one-up the Republicans on this front...
Apparently Romney and other Republicans also boycotted Obama's inauguration, apparently for the specific purpose of planning obstruction to anything he was going to do. Still trying to hunt down specifics though, but it hardly seems they are doing anything surprising.
As a European (from Finland, and a Hitchensian socialist and anti-theist), I've felt the policies of secretary of state Clinton on my daily life, and am convinced she's a warmonger. I haven't gotten that vibe from Trump. If anything, he won't meddle in middle eastern conflicts trying to change governments, and seems in good terms with the greatest nuclear power after the USA. So in terms of nuclear war, or regional wars, I think we'll be better off.
Well, as an American, Hillary's actions were almost always bipartisan supported cases that were dictated by the realpolitik and US policy and say more about the US than her, I'd say. There were certainly some hold outs that can be shown to be actively avoiding conflict, it's hard to single people out for voting along with the majority. Trump on the other hand does seem to buck the realpolitik and old US policy, but will do things like say we need to be Russia's friend in one statement while saying we'll restart the cold war with them in the next. He has no previous record to determine what he will really do or judge those actions. So far, we've seen that he has no hesitation in breaking long time policy and creating diplomatic issues with countries like China. His tweets, especially those about tv shows and actors, make him seem impulsive and thin skinned. Doesn't really seem that he will do well at avoiding conflict if it comes to some serious brinkmanship.
No, he won because the Democratic Party is too busy tripping over their hypocritical statements and actions. You know, the party of inclusion that can't wait to have 60+ sitting congresspersons "boycott" the inauguration of the president that they now have to work with. Their candidate for president was even there, and tweeting about working together. Yet these petty and petulant asshats can't see that the inauguration is a celebration of the institution, and not of the man being sworn in.
The divisiveness only continues to get worse as long as these douchebags can't see that they are the ones perpetuating the problem.
I'm sure that the Democrats will show all the support and understanding to Trump that the Republicans showed to Obama.
I'm kinda curious about this. Doesn't like, an ambassador's protection extend to the inside of his/her vehicle? Limo or whatever? Probably not a public plane, would need to send one from Russia. Clearly IANAL.
I think so and others in this thread have mentioned it, but in this case the building has multiple office and only one is the embassy, so once outside the office in the hallway, long before the vehicle, they'd technically be in the UK. I was mainly joking about the diplomatic pouch but I seem to remember this actually having been done at one point.
What good would any line of credit do him? Short of Russia having teleportation technology, he has no way out of the embassy.
Couldn't the Russian ambassador just head over there with a really large diplomatic pouch and then head back to the Russian embassy with it?
Why would a Japanese toilet have markings in Latin characters? Besides that, that wasn't funny.
Have you seen any Japanese magazines? Latin characters, called romaji, are just 37 more characters to be added to their written symbols already numbering thousands to be used whenever it is more appropriate.
If he had left his inheritance alone, he would be twice as wealthy as he claims to be now.
You're still repeating this crap? Fred Trump didn't die until 1999. The "analysis" you're talking about assumes Donald got Fred's 1999 fortune in the 1970s. Unless Trump also has a time machine, that doesn't work out.
Well, considering that Trump seems to have gotten almost all his money through deals that his father set up and either loaned him the money for or cosigned on the bank loans, then it does seem like all of Trump's fortune is really just his inheritance.
It's only wealth retention when it can be converted to other assets. We're heading for another housing bubble bust as boomers try to sell their homes to the next generation who just doesn't have the money to purchase that particular asset, even at zero interest 30 year mortgages. Those assets will start depreciating damn fast over the next 15-20 years.
I'd say it's already happening. That's literally what those voters that switched sides in places like Ohio were saying "Our houses aren't appreciating in value and our children can't buy them still." There is still growing housing markets, but they are in the urban centers where the jobs and economy are. Small town, or even small city USA where they used to do manufacturing just isn't there anymore. Places like NYC, SF, and Seattle have already forced out boomers with gentrification. My boss has said he couldn't even pay the tax on the house he grew up in because it's value has gone up so high. I've looked back at the housing market where I grew up, flyover state town, and I could buy a house there outright just by writing a check. I could buy ten for what I bought a house for. Now the housing in the hot coastal cities may depreciate also in the next 15-20 years, but it won't be because of the boomers selling.
Kill the poor, duh.
But seriously, countries will clamp down on immigration and corral/deport their poor until they all die off.
Ya right. Those are the people doing most the jobs that can't be automated, otherwise, they'd already would have been. Get rid of them and born and bred Americans won't stand for being cheap labor and you'll find that they will start crying for a socialist state. Look at the Trump supporters crying for government hand outs in the form of well paying jobs for unskilled workers in remote parts of the US.
I've also heard many stories about how Amazon is to work for in both technical and ground level positions. I don't think I'd want a tech position there, even though they're working on really cool stuff with AWS. Accounts from alumni I've heard describe it as a huge employer who's insanely tight-fisted and never grew up out of startup crunch mode. Their perfect employee is a fresh grad with no previous experience that will say nothing of working nights, weekends, etc. for low pay. I think the phrase "Seattle hundreds" was coined there initially. Add that to the pressure-cooker back stabbing culture I've heard described many times, and I think I'll pass!
This matches what I've heard (although some parts are better than others), however, you must understand that most of their new hires tend to be fresh grads looking to get something on their resume and expect to use it to be gone in 18 months due to their own plans anyway.
Seattle: Together with Microsoft and bad city management, Seattle is a miserable place: Traffic: Seattle one of the worst U.S. cities for traffic congestion, tied with NYC (March 31, 2015) Quote: "An additional 23 minutes a day spent in traffic may not sound like much, but when it adds up over a year it becomes 89 hours." (Whoever wrote that must be accustomed to Seattle misery. An additional 23 minutes a day spent in traffic sounds HORRIBLE.) Slow internet: Many areas of Seattle have poor internet connections. See the article, These places have the slowest Internet in the country. (June 25, 2015) Quote: "... Seattle ... CenturyLink (CTL) customers trying to access particular sites from 9 p.m. to 10 p.m. will have unbearably slow speeds."
Yes, Seattle is horrible. DO NOT COME HERE! There's nothing to see or do. No work. No food. No housing. um, ...did I mention it rains all the time and you'll be depressed and need Vitamin D shots or risk committing suicide? It's a wasteland and at best just the demo version of San Francisco. Move there!
Each show will feature bearded hipsters from San Francisco, dialog about organic food, and indie music from pitchfork.
Sounds better than most of the TV out there.
We went other places. You damn New England liberals follow us everywhere. You ruined the north east. You ruined California. You ruined Colorado.
It's like you much up a place so bad that it's unlivable, then decide to move to the region where folks who don't want invasive government moved to when they left you. And then you just pass all the same stupid laws and taxes over until that place is ruined. In 20-30 years, Denver, Colorado will be an insane mecca of taxes and regulations that will be unbearable. Then you liberals will leave and move to Idaho, the Dakotas, etc.
I bet you'll find that the thing "ruining" Denver is people moving from places like Idaho and the Dakotas because the young people are trying to escape socially repressive areas and college graduates are looking to move to a place with an economy, culture and opportunity. I expect the next places to be ruined will be Texas between Austin, Dallas, and Houston and Georgia with Atlanta as they similarly gain people from the surrounding red states.
If a guy leaving his stuff for 5 years in the house of his ex-wife loses the ownership of his former property, I wonder the sanity of claiming to the heirs stuff hidden/abandoned so long ago. How long is too long ago? By that logic, we should start searching the heirs of that roman coins or pirate treasure...
Having just bought a house, it seems to be typical contract condition that everything left in the house at time of purchase now belongs to the new owner. From there, it seems that it would depend if the seller had the right to sell the objects left in the house. Roman coins and pirate treasure probably fall under other laws that the seller could not just ignore. In the case of other people's objects, it probably gets murky. So, if I buy a house and find a box in the wall with stuff in it, it's mine unless some other condition would cause somebody else to have a stronger claim than the seller of the house.
That is what Trump is going to do. He is going to force the politicians to actually do all the things they say.
I wouldn't get your hopes up. Trump has already said they'll probably just get rid of the parts of Obamacare they don't like and keep the ones they do. That wall is never getting built just because of the engineering issues and costs involved. He's not deporting all the undocumented people for the same reason they haven't already been deported, the sheer scale and cost of doing so prevents it from happening. Thing is, his supporters take him seriously, but not literally. They expect him to do something about Obamacare, immigration, illegals, etc, but not exactly what he said he'd do. I see no reason that he would actually try and get the Republicans to hold to their promises any better than he does his own, nor do I think he has enough power with the bully pulpit to make them.
The original web was just fine with no javascript, no css...
Do you want Flash? because that's how you get Flash!