I am German as well and, in fact, managed to visit Koenigsberg in 1987 (don't ask how).
Given a name like dunkelfalke, that you're German, and it was 1987, you were either being sent there for Stasi training, RAF training, or seeking out underground Russian new wave band or punk bands that you had heard on some smuggled cassette tape (or possibly playing a show there yourself).
I'm not so sure I'd limit it just to permanent structural damage or killing people as a requirement as a weapon. Any damage, even temporary would probably be just as useful for such a term. Psychological weapons exist but do not necessarily cause permanent damage for example. Cyber weapons would be the same. Disruption of communications, damage to files, or even corruption of software requiring it to be reloaded would suffice. Then there is economic damage caused by such attacks. I think that generally things that are intended to harm the workings of the enemies internet devices or services probably would count as a weapon.
I should really bother to read TFA to find out exactly what happened in this case. DoS attacks by state actors really don't make too much sense unless actually used when needed. Why reveal your hand unless actually trying to prevent them from doing something, especially for a temporary disruption? Could be tests to get a better idea of the abilities of the enemy. Could just be saber rattling. Sort of a cyber diplomacy instead of a gunboat diplomacy.
As far as corporate (legal or illegal) hackers being much bigger and better than what the governments have, I really have no hard info on this but sounds like the cyberpunk future I was told to expect back in the 80's. Still governments hold more power at this point and if they really wanted/needed to catch up, I bet they have the resources to do it in short order.
What the hell is a cyber weapon? Are they using some laptop that any other hacker can't use because it's so big or expensive only a government can afford it?
That is probably an excellent question, or at least and interesting one. A laptop, probably not. A server farm? Much more likely. Software created by paid coders. Even more likely. An install vector that was gained via intelligence apparatus run by a government? I think that would certainly help and be something that any other hacker could not use but wouldn't really qualify it for a weapon. Another thing that any other hacker wouldn't have is shielding from discovery. For hacking against the US against us originating from Russia, we are essentially stopped at the border and can't prove anything without the compliance of the Russians or hacking back ourselves. If it was a non-state sponsor, they might aid us, especially if it threatened their interests also. If is was, there is little chance they would ever find anything. While hackers have their bot nets, malware, hacking tools, etc. I expect that those used by state sponsors are better, larger, and more capable of inflicting harm on targets. This parallels how many military weapons can be purchased by common citizens but once they get into things like tanks and bombs, only governments would have them.
It's actually a flaw in the Kickstarter program that your promised delivery date is locked in stone prior to discovering you've got a landslide on your hands. (How to manage around that, I've never quite figured out. Kickstarter mainly appeals to flighty dreamers—too much honesty could seriously damp the lemming effect.)
In KSs that I have gone in on, it was done by having the rewards in "waves". Wave 1 is the basic reward shipping on Jan 1 with 1000 offered. Wave 2 is the basic reward shipping on Feb 1 with 1000 offered. Wave 3 ships on Mar 1, etc. They can always add more "waves" as more people sign up and they can always ship early if they can manage it. People that have backed can manage to change their pledge to an earlier wave if they keep and eye out for vacancies as people change pledges or drop out. Of course, you still have to have a good idea of how long it will take to scale production if you get really successful.
Alot of folks just don't understand the frustration that the liberalists create by basically saying we can't say anything bad about anything. We don't live in a happy utopia where everything is perfect.
I think you are misinterpreting what the entire call out crowd is saying. They agree you have the right of freedom of speech, but that you do not have the right to escape consequences. If you are going to be an asshole in public, expect to be called out as an asshole. Of course, most assholes want to go ahead and continue being assholes like they have been, and this leads to having people being an asshole back telling them they are assholes, resulting in an escalation of assholedom.
So a black hole forms when matter is condensed into a sufficiently small space so that even light cannot escape because gravity bends spacetime so much that there is no path to get outside the event horizon. Assuming the big bang theory is plausible, early in the universe the universe would (presumably) be incredibly dense with matter for some period of time. So how is it that having all that matter so close together didn't results in nothing but a bunch of black holes? How does the big bang theory get around much/all of the matter in the universe collapsing into a black hole in the early universe? What was different about spacetime to allow this to happen?
Space was expanding. There is plenty of evidence from different directions to indicate that this is what happened. It was expanding fast enough to over come the effects of gravity. It's still expanding and that's how we get red shifting today. Why did this happen? Well, that's because *cough* *cough* *mumble into a corner*. My guess at a simple answer that can be written down in a post in a place like/. is that it came from other dimensions. Just like they say that before the big bang, there was no time or space, there possibly was something, just not the something we know. These are the other dimensions that string theorists talk about and the current idea is that they are getting smaller to make our space get bigger, like that experiment with two unequally sized balloons and the smaller one continues to shrink and force it's air into the larger one (because of differences of surface pressures of the two balloons).
according to a theory that overturns Einstein's century-old claim that the speed of light is a constant
Did Einstein ever make any claims about the speed of light being constant over time, or has a journalist just assumed he must have in order to shoe-horn his name in?
I believe what he claimed is that the speed of light is the same to all observers. From there you are dealing with frames of reference whose times are related by some transform and possibly what we would call different. Thus if two observers measure the speed of light as the same and are at different times, then the speed of light would be constant over time. That being said, I doubt if he really intended to handle all corner cases such as the time when the entire universe was a singularity or when other laws of physics break down. If the speed of light was different than what we see now, then old light from that time should have certain peculiarities to it. I believe those peculiarities are what they are proposing to look for in the article.
This is a circular argument. To quote GP, why would energy be constant? Maybe the variability is beyond our ability to observe. Maybe thermodynamics is wrong, and free energy can be produced but only in very small quantities.
To an extent, it is circular argument as science does have some basic assumptions. One being that the laws of physics work everywhere and another being that they do not change, thus experiments are repeatable in any location. These are like the axioms of mathematics. They have served us well and have held up when we make predictions using them. It could be that they might not be quite true. In that case, it's not like everything we've known will cease to work, we'll just have to redefine some things. An example of this would be the theory of relativity and its effects on our knowledge of Newtonian physics. Why should some things be constant throughout the universe, because we have defined them a such. One example being the speed of light in a vacuum. If we do find that the speed of light is conditional, then that will require a reworking of physics to some extent. Still, when dealing with the big bang and the time we are speaking about, such bizarreness might not be all that foundation shattering as the expansion of space is a pretty weird phenomenon itself driven means we probably aren't sure about. Add in suspicion that the universe could have been at a false vacuum at some point, and if it was, the universal constants would have been different as would have been the laws of physics.
In pure rote roles it might work for a little longer, but in a couple of months the 80/week worker is a net negative producer.
Willingness to work 80 hour weeks is a sign of someone who doesn't care about doing good work. Companies full of 80 hour/week people are waiting to implode.
I live in Seattle and know people who have worked at Amazon. Some departments are better than others but the average term of employment told to me is about 18 months. By that time, they've found something better or been let go. Many of the people doing this know it and are just using Amazon for resume padding. They go in expecting to grind their nose, put it on their resume and hopefully use it as a stepping stone to find a better job because they have experience before they get let go. Amazon seems happy with that plan.
I'm also wondering when we are going to get a space station or other craft into space which has a rotating cylinder that can provide artificial gravity.
Probably not for a long time. The minimum radius for spinning is such that a rotating cylinder would be a much more massive structure than we'll be ready to build for a long time in the future. Current estimation would be 80 meters in diameter to keep there from being inner ear issues. I suspect we'll see tethered units or a radial design that will spin much sooner than a full rotating cylinder.
Sorry. I take that back. There are 24 and 32Gb chips. Perhaps not at the datarate the Mac is speced for or some other reason. Still, probably not in type that Apple wants to use, as I can't see them passing up the chance to offer 32 Gb version at 3x the normal price.
You can't upgrade a MBP to more then 16 GB of RAM because the RAM is soldered onto the motherboard? WTF.
No, you can't upgrade a MBP to more than 16 GB of RAM because it uses a low power type of RAM that is limited to 16GB. (Well, it is soldered on but there are no 32 GB RAM units that could be soldered on.) I can't find anything to argue with in the rest of your post.
Doesn't even need any changes. They just need to vigorously enforce that rule
Sounds like you're talking about immigration law in general, that everyone is freaking out about on the left with our president-elect. The laws already exist, but what has been happening is "legislation" by the executive branch, by not enforcing law. Another example is the legalization of marijuana at the state level, when it's illegal at the federal level. I'm not attempting to open a debate on whether or not it is right or wrong that the federal government regulates it in the way it does (I am pretty adamant across the board that the Federal government has gotten way too strong and usurped too much power from the states), but what I'm saying is the inaction and lack of enforcement by the executive branch of laws passed by the legislative branch is a misuse of power and an imbalance in the three branches. This has been a problem with previous presidents, but Obama has taken lack of enforcement of law to another level. The judicial branch only gets to rule on cases brought before it, thus if the executive branch does not prosecute in the first place, the judicial branch is also totally removed from the picture.
So in other words, the left has been flipping out over the mere enforcement of existing laws, and the H1-B enforcement is just another example.
It's hardly just the left. The right has big advantage with illegals being here too, as it is the business owners who are profiting from cheap labor. But really, the main culprit in both illegal aliens and marijuana examples will probably be budgets. Deporting all those people would take something like 20 years and half a trillion dollars. Trumps wall is estimated at 200 billion and that is just for a fence like one fifth the border already has, and doesn't include the cost of watching and maintaining said wall. One of the reason that the states are legalizing marijuana is that it was just cluttering up their jail and court systems. The Feds don't push it because if the remarks of the police here in Seattle when it was legalized was anything to judge, if they did, the police would arrest every single marijuana violator and call the Feds to come get them, take them to Fed jail, then Fed court, all on the Fed's dime. The Feds don't want millions of dollars in possession cases clogging up their system any more than the states do. Probably even less. Anyway, this is why nothing is really getting done and probably won't even under the guy that ran on that issue, the money just isn't there.
Why?
Seriously, how is he even a patch on life long politicians who have been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people around the world like Bush and Hillary?
People that have added massive debt to the U.S. that has our kids names on the bills and forced crap like ObamaCare on us.
Oh, he MIGHT be as bad at some point? Perhaps, but he hasn't done anything yet.
The hatred is astounding.
Oh come on. Your post is ample evidence that the previous president hardly escaped astounding hate. There might be something in there about how the left and right cope with not having the presidency differently, but in practice, neither side lets the other side take power without bitching and whining for the entire four years. We just had eight years of Republican bitching and now we will have at least four of Democrat bitching.
The fact that you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't true. A LOT of Trump supporters are exactly those things. Just because Trump won doesn't make that just go away.
True, but the people who are like that know it and don't care or even are proud, while those that aren't are just going to be upset they are being poked with a stick by the other side which will just increase their resolve. While yelling such may be emotionally gratifying, it isn't going to help the cause any. Same goes for Republicans calling Democrats all sorts of names. Calling once side stereotypes just reinforces the non-stereotypes that the other side are the real stereotypes.
Also you have to remember the cost to transport the parts. Right now most of the parts are semi-local. They come from down the street pretty much. Now all those parts have to be shipped to the US and handled separately through customs thus probably adding almost 50% to that cost at least.
Last I saw a report, the parts were coming from Taiwan, Japan, and Korea, all of which make more money off of each iDevice made than China. China is just a source of unskilled labor to assemble all the parts.
Will these incentives specifically state rust belt states? Why exactly would they put these plants there rather than New England or the West Coast? Labor costs? Most of the parts are coming in from Korea, Taiwan, and Japan so wouldn't a West Coast shipping port be better? China only does the assembly.
While Trump is dreaming up stuff to do, he should try and get all those electronic parts manufactures back here in the US.
In many respects, that makes sense, Trump's "Make America Great Again" rhetoric would resonate most with people who have not had a great 8 years under Obama, and least with those who have.
Yep, the entire time I wanted to know exactly what metrics Trump was speaking about that isn't higher than pretty much any other time in the US history. It pretty much all came down to jobs for people from vanishing industries and rural areas, essentially, they seem to want a government work program. They won't see it that because they "want jobs not handouts" but such jobs apparently aren't currently economically viable. They can try and get them back with some protectionism, rearrangement of some government money, but in the end they'll be talking about more expensive labor (even more so with the immigration policies discussed). I'm not against such things as jobs for all, but would think that if anybody thinks it's an problem with an easy solution, they're an idiot. Still, I find it funny that the supposedly conservative population seem to want an economy that sounds more like some parts of Europe like Switzerland. (Not that I really know that much about European economics; it's just an impression I have.) Next they will be crying out for single payer health care, maternity leave, and free child care.
Why does the US continue to try to make voting as difficult and complex as possible? Is it really the end goal of the US government to prevent people from voting?
First off, it's not the US, but rather the 50 states plus DC. The only national election we have is for the President and in that case, each state is left to decide how its vote is handled, so there are 51 different ways of it being done, perhaps more with expatriates and military personnel overseas in different services. Most of who gets to vote and how is left up to the states. There are Federal laws for who cannot be denied the vote but otherwise the states have pretty broad license to do whatever they want so long as they follow their state constitution. Second, I doubt if hand counting is any more accurate or quicker than optical scanners. Third, there are stranger things, like the East Coast where I understand they have mechanical voting machines with no paper trail at all. Never seen one in person, just read about them and seen them in movies and such. Still, they have apparently been shown to be reliable and tamper proof over the years.
No know plenty of "blue collar" people who are "educated" and visa versa.
When you try to turn this into a "smart" vs "not smart" you are asking for trouble. It's more likely about people who have been negatively impacted by the last few decades of policy.
For instance, I'm thinking that there is a good chance that plenty of IT workers who have had to train their foreign replacement voted for Trump.
I've seen it put forth that it is an urban versus rural split, with smaller cities often being in the rural category. It also seems to be tied to economic well being as the normally Democratic northern states went Republican because of bad local economy and while very blue collar and expected Republican areas of WA state went Democrat because the local economy is still good. My guess is that the current economy favors large cities as that is where the job worker markets are. They are doing good, while smaller locals such as towns and even smaller cities aren't pulling in growth in new fields such as computers and software because they are not something that can be done without a large selection of available trained people to draw from unless they are near enough for a halo effect.
Read the article. Follow the sources. More effort than most readers here will bother with.
In this case, it goes to Engadget which links to an article on the Wall Street Journal commenting on an unreleased Stanford study (apparently set for release today or next Tuesday). You could try and find the article, but in this case, the WSJ is about the most reliable source of news. People pay to read the WSJ because they expect correct news in order to base their attempts to make money. If the WSJ misportrays something and people lose billions on wrong information, they will go find a different source of news to buy. Of course, still you can't really trust the commentaries as they are just opinions and not actually news. This seems to be a legit and researched article but if I was going to base my business on it, I might spend the effort to hunt down that study and read it, and probably some others too. For a discussion on/., I'd go ahead and make the call that this is a real story with fairly reliable information (that there was a study and this is what it found out, the study still could be wrong).
Slashdot Mirror
I am German as well and, in fact, managed to visit Koenigsberg in 1987 (don't ask how).
Given a name like dunkelfalke, that you're German, and it was 1987, you were either being sent there for Stasi training, RAF training, or seeking out underground Russian new wave band or punk bands that you had heard on some smuggled cassette tape (or possibly playing a show there yourself).
I'm not so sure I'd limit it just to permanent structural damage or killing people as a requirement as a weapon. Any damage, even temporary would probably be just as useful for such a term. Psychological weapons exist but do not necessarily cause permanent damage for example. Cyber weapons would be the same. Disruption of communications, damage to files, or even corruption of software requiring it to be reloaded would suffice. Then there is economic damage caused by such attacks. I think that generally things that are intended to harm the workings of the enemies internet devices or services probably would count as a weapon.
I should really bother to read TFA to find out exactly what happened in this case. DoS attacks by state actors really don't make too much sense unless actually used when needed. Why reveal your hand unless actually trying to prevent them from doing something, especially for a temporary disruption? Could be tests to get a better idea of the abilities of the enemy. Could just be saber rattling. Sort of a cyber diplomacy instead of a gunboat diplomacy.
As far as corporate (legal or illegal) hackers being much bigger and better than what the governments have, I really have no hard info on this but sounds like the cyberpunk future I was told to expect back in the 80's. Still governments hold more power at this point and if they really wanted/needed to catch up, I bet they have the resources to do it in short order.
How do you know what shit tastes like?
Don't answer that! The rest of us don't want to know.
What the hell is a cyber weapon? Are they using some laptop that any other hacker can't use because it's so big or expensive only a government can afford it?
That is probably an excellent question, or at least and interesting one. A laptop, probably not. A server farm? Much more likely. Software created by paid coders. Even more likely. An install vector that was gained via intelligence apparatus run by a government? I think that would certainly help and be something that any other hacker could not use but wouldn't really qualify it for a weapon. Another thing that any other hacker wouldn't have is shielding from discovery. For hacking against the US against us originating from Russia, we are essentially stopped at the border and can't prove anything without the compliance of the Russians or hacking back ourselves. If it was a non-state sponsor, they might aid us, especially if it threatened their interests also. If is was, there is little chance they would ever find anything. While hackers have their bot nets, malware, hacking tools, etc. I expect that those used by state sponsors are better, larger, and more capable of inflicting harm on targets. This parallels how many military weapons can be purchased by common citizens but once they get into things like tanks and bombs, only governments would have them.
It's actually a flaw in the Kickstarter program that your promised delivery date is locked in stone prior to discovering you've got a landslide on your hands. (How to manage around that, I've never quite figured out. Kickstarter mainly appeals to flighty dreamers—too much honesty could seriously damp the lemming effect.)
In KSs that I have gone in on, it was done by having the rewards in "waves". Wave 1 is the basic reward shipping on Jan 1 with 1000 offered. Wave 2 is the basic reward shipping on Feb 1 with 1000 offered. Wave 3 ships on Mar 1, etc. They can always add more "waves" as more people sign up and they can always ship early if they can manage it. People that have backed can manage to change their pledge to an earlier wave if they keep and eye out for vacancies as people change pledges or drop out. Of course, you still have to have a good idea of how long it will take to scale production if you get really successful.
My main question is....You can do experimental tests with MDMA, but you can't with marijuana?!?!
Is MDMA on a lower schedule than pot...? Seriously?
MDMA probably has the advantage of having previously been a clinical drug. Only later did it get used for recreational purposes and get scheduled.
Alot of folks just don't understand the frustration that the liberalists create by basically saying we can't say anything bad about anything. We don't live in a happy utopia where everything is perfect.
I think you are misinterpreting what the entire call out crowd is saying. They agree you have the right of freedom of speech, but that you do not have the right to escape consequences. If you are going to be an asshole in public, expect to be called out as an asshole. Of course, most assholes want to go ahead and continue being assholes like they have been, and this leads to having people being an asshole back telling them they are assholes, resulting in an escalation of assholedom.
So a black hole forms when matter is condensed into a sufficiently small space so that even light cannot escape because gravity bends spacetime so much that there is no path to get outside the event horizon. Assuming the big bang theory is plausible, early in the universe the universe would (presumably) be incredibly dense with matter for some period of time. So how is it that having all that matter so close together didn't results in nothing but a bunch of black holes? How does the big bang theory get around much/all of the matter in the universe collapsing into a black hole in the early universe? What was different about spacetime to allow this to happen?
Space was expanding. There is plenty of evidence from different directions to indicate that this is what happened. It was expanding fast enough to over come the effects of gravity. It's still expanding and that's how we get red shifting today. Why did this happen? Well, that's because *cough* *cough* *mumble into a corner*. My guess at a simple answer that can be written down in a post in a place like /. is that it came from other dimensions. Just like they say that before the big bang, there was no time or space, there possibly was something, just not the something we know. These are the other dimensions that string theorists talk about and the current idea is that they are getting smaller to make our space get bigger, like that experiment with two unequally sized balloons and the smaller one continues to shrink and force it's air into the larger one (because of differences of surface pressures of the two balloons).
according to a theory that overturns Einstein's century-old claim that the speed of light is a constant
Did Einstein ever make any claims about the speed of light being constant over time, or has a journalist just assumed he must have in order to shoe-horn his name in?
I believe what he claimed is that the speed of light is the same to all observers. From there you are dealing with frames of reference whose times are related by some transform and possibly what we would call different. Thus if two observers measure the speed of light as the same and are at different times, then the speed of light would be constant over time. That being said, I doubt if he really intended to handle all corner cases such as the time when the entire universe was a singularity or when other laws of physics break down. If the speed of light was different than what we see now, then old light from that time should have certain peculiarities to it. I believe those peculiarities are what they are proposing to look for in the article.
This is a circular argument. To quote GP, why would energy be constant? Maybe the variability is beyond our ability to observe. Maybe thermodynamics is wrong, and free energy can be produced but only in very small quantities.
To an extent, it is circular argument as science does have some basic assumptions. One being that the laws of physics work everywhere and another being that they do not change, thus experiments are repeatable in any location. These are like the axioms of mathematics. They have served us well and have held up when we make predictions using them. It could be that they might not be quite true. In that case, it's not like everything we've known will cease to work, we'll just have to redefine some things. An example of this would be the theory of relativity and its effects on our knowledge of Newtonian physics. Why should some things be constant throughout the universe, because we have defined them a such. One example being the speed of light in a vacuum. If we do find that the speed of light is conditional, then that will require a reworking of physics to some extent. Still, when dealing with the big bang and the time we are speaking about, such bizarreness might not be all that foundation shattering as the expansion of space is a pretty weird phenomenon itself driven means we probably aren't sure about. Add in suspicion that the universe could have been at a false vacuum at some point, and if it was, the universal constants would have been different as would have been the laws of physics.
In pure rote roles it might work for a little longer, but in a couple of months the 80/week worker is a net negative producer.
Willingness to work 80 hour weeks is a sign of someone who doesn't care about doing good work. Companies full of 80 hour/week people are waiting to implode.
I live in Seattle and know people who have worked at Amazon. Some departments are better than others but the average term of employment told to me is about 18 months. By that time, they've found something better or been let go. Many of the people doing this know it and are just using Amazon for resume padding. They go in expecting to grind their nose, put it on their resume and hopefully use it as a stepping stone to find a better job because they have experience before they get let go. Amazon seems happy with that plan.
I'm also wondering when we are going to get a space station or other craft into space which has a rotating cylinder that can provide artificial gravity.
Probably not for a long time. The minimum radius for spinning is such that a rotating cylinder would be a much more massive structure than we'll be ready to build for a long time in the future. Current estimation would be 80 meters in diameter to keep there from being inner ear issues. I suspect we'll see tethered units or a radial design that will spin much sooner than a full rotating cylinder.
Sorry. I take that back. There are 24 and 32Gb chips. Perhaps not at the datarate the Mac is speced for or some other reason. Still, probably not in type that Apple wants to use, as I can't see them passing up the chance to offer 32 Gb version at 3x the normal price.
You can't upgrade a MBP to more then 16 GB of RAM because the RAM is soldered onto the motherboard? WTF.
No, you can't upgrade a MBP to more than 16 GB of RAM because it uses a low power type of RAM that is limited to 16GB. (Well, it is soldered on but there are no 32 GB RAM units that could be soldered on.) I can't find anything to argue with in the rest of your post.
Doesn't even need any changes. They just need to vigorously enforce that rule
Sounds like you're talking about immigration law in general, that everyone is freaking out about on the left with our president-elect. The laws already exist, but what has been happening is "legislation" by the executive branch, by not enforcing law. Another example is the legalization of marijuana at the state level, when it's illegal at the federal level. I'm not attempting to open a debate on whether or not it is right or wrong that the federal government regulates it in the way it does (I am pretty adamant across the board that the Federal government has gotten way too strong and usurped too much power from the states), but what I'm saying is the inaction and lack of enforcement by the executive branch of laws passed by the legislative branch is a misuse of power and an imbalance in the three branches. This has been a problem with previous presidents, but Obama has taken lack of enforcement of law to another level. The judicial branch only gets to rule on cases brought before it, thus if the executive branch does not prosecute in the first place, the judicial branch is also totally removed from the picture.
So in other words, the left has been flipping out over the mere enforcement of existing laws, and the H1-B enforcement is just another example.
It's hardly just the left. The right has big advantage with illegals being here too, as it is the business owners who are profiting from cheap labor. But really, the main culprit in both illegal aliens and marijuana examples will probably be budgets. Deporting all those people would take something like 20 years and half a trillion dollars. Trumps wall is estimated at 200 billion and that is just for a fence like one fifth the border already has, and doesn't include the cost of watching and maintaining said wall. One of the reason that the states are legalizing marijuana is that it was just cluttering up their jail and court systems. The Feds don't push it because if the remarks of the police here in Seattle when it was legalized was anything to judge, if they did, the police would arrest every single marijuana violator and call the Feds to come get them, take them to Fed jail, then Fed court, all on the Fed's dime. The Feds don't want millions of dollars in possession cases clogging up their system any more than the states do. Probably even less. Anyway, this is why nothing is really getting done and probably won't even under the guy that ran on that issue, the money just isn't there.
Let's ask Donald Trump what he thinks of the electoral college:
https://twitter.com/realDonald...
Well, I'm not going to argue with him. Now that he is President, he can try and do something about it.
And the Orange Daddy earned every bit of it.
Why? Seriously, how is he even a patch on life long politicians who have been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people around the world like Bush and Hillary?
People that have added massive debt to the U.S. that has our kids names on the bills and forced crap like ObamaCare on us. Oh, he MIGHT be as bad at some point? Perhaps, but he hasn't done anything yet.
The hatred is astounding.
Oh come on. Your post is ample evidence that the previous president hardly escaped astounding hate. There might be something in there about how the left and right cope with not having the presidency differently, but in practice, neither side lets the other side take power without bitching and whining for the entire four years. We just had eight years of Republican bitching and now we will have at least four of Democrat bitching.
The fact that you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't true. A LOT of Trump supporters are exactly those things. Just because Trump won doesn't make that just go away.
True, but the people who are like that know it and don't care or even are proud, while those that aren't are just going to be upset they are being poked with a stick by the other side which will just increase their resolve. While yelling such may be emotionally gratifying, it isn't going to help the cause any. Same goes for Republicans calling Democrats all sorts of names. Calling once side stereotypes just reinforces the non-stereotypes that the other side are the real stereotypes.
What happened to this place?
We let too many Anonymous Cowards in.
Also you have to remember the cost to transport the parts. Right now most of the parts are semi-local. They come from down the street pretty much. Now all those parts have to be shipped to the US and handled separately through customs thus probably adding almost 50% to that cost at least.
Last I saw a report, the parts were coming from Taiwan, Japan, and Korea, all of which make more money off of each iDevice made than China. China is just a source of unskilled labor to assemble all the parts.
Will these incentives specifically state rust belt states? Why exactly would they put these plants there rather than New England or the West Coast? Labor costs? Most of the parts are coming in from Korea, Taiwan, and Japan so wouldn't a West Coast shipping port be better? China only does the assembly.
While Trump is dreaming up stuff to do, he should try and get all those electronic parts manufactures back here in the US.
In many respects, that makes sense, Trump's "Make America Great Again" rhetoric would resonate most with people who have not had a great 8 years under Obama, and least with those who have.
Yep, the entire time I wanted to know exactly what metrics Trump was speaking about that isn't higher than pretty much any other time in the US history. It pretty much all came down to jobs for people from vanishing industries and rural areas, essentially, they seem to want a government work program. They won't see it that because they "want jobs not handouts" but such jobs apparently aren't currently economically viable. They can try and get them back with some protectionism, rearrangement of some government money, but in the end they'll be talking about more expensive labor (even more so with the immigration policies discussed). I'm not against such things as jobs for all, but would think that if anybody thinks it's an problem with an easy solution, they're an idiot. Still, I find it funny that the supposedly conservative population seem to want an economy that sounds more like some parts of Europe like Switzerland. (Not that I really know that much about European economics; it's just an impression I have.) Next they will be crying out for single payer health care, maternity leave, and free child care.
Why does the US continue to try to make voting as difficult and complex as possible? Is it really the end goal of the US government to prevent people from voting?
First off, it's not the US, but rather the 50 states plus DC. The only national election we have is for the President and in that case, each state is left to decide how its vote is handled, so there are 51 different ways of it being done, perhaps more with expatriates and military personnel overseas in different services. Most of who gets to vote and how is left up to the states. There are Federal laws for who cannot be denied the vote but otherwise the states have pretty broad license to do whatever they want so long as they follow their state constitution. Second, I doubt if hand counting is any more accurate or quicker than optical scanners. Third, there are stranger things, like the East Coast where I understand they have mechanical voting machines with no paper trail at all. Never seen one in person, just read about them and seen them in movies and such. Still, they have apparently been shown to be reliable and tamper proof over the years.
No know plenty of "blue collar" people who are "educated" and visa versa.
When you try to turn this into a "smart" vs "not smart" you are asking for trouble. It's more likely about people who have been negatively impacted by the last few decades of policy.
For instance, I'm thinking that there is a good chance that plenty of IT workers who have had to train their foreign replacement voted for Trump.
I've seen it put forth that it is an urban versus rural split, with smaller cities often being in the rural category. It also seems to be tied to economic well being as the normally Democratic northern states went Republican because of bad local economy and while very blue collar and expected Republican areas of WA state went Democrat because the local economy is still good. My guess is that the current economy favors large cities as that is where the job worker markets are. They are doing good, while smaller locals such as towns and even smaller cities aren't pulling in growth in new fields such as computers and software because they are not something that can be done without a large selection of available trained people to draw from unless they are near enough for a halo effect.
It's so hard to tell...
Read the article. Follow the sources. More effort than most readers here will bother with.
In this case, it goes to Engadget which links to an article on the Wall Street Journal commenting on an unreleased Stanford study (apparently set for release today or next Tuesday). You could try and find the article, but in this case, the WSJ is about the most reliable source of news. People pay to read the WSJ because they expect correct news in order to base their attempts to make money. If the WSJ misportrays something and people lose billions on wrong information, they will go find a different source of news to buy. Of course, still you can't really trust the commentaries as they are just opinions and not actually news. This seems to be a legit and researched article but if I was going to base my business on it, I might spend the effort to hunt down that study and read it, and probably some others too. For a discussion on /., I'd go ahead and make the call that this is a real story with fairly reliable information (that there was a study and this is what it found out, the study still could be wrong).