Oh, I grew up in communist Texas (where the Bushes learned their communism). The power company was owned by the state. The water company was owned by the city (and sewer as well). The Gas was also state, I think (I don't remember the company for the gas, but I think it was the same as the electric). And the phone was owned by a federal government established monopoly.
So if you count the monopoly as government controlled, then 100% of my utilities growing up in Texas were government owned.
Paid by taxes of fees is a separate issue than whether the providers were private or public companies.
What irony? You had multiple grammatical errors. He pointed it out. I didn't see any grammatical errors in his post. Thus I don't see the irony. Can you point it out to me? The irony is when the person pointing out errors makes multiple themselves.
A company claims to be a person when it comes to rights and privileges, but not when it comes to responsibilities. The taxes aren't double-dipping if corporations are people. But if your argument is that corporations aren't people, you need to argue with the Supreme Court, not me.
We also didn't force anonymous vote on the people for the first 100 years or so.
The income tax was related to the birth of the standing military. The military caused most of the problems that exist in the US today. If we didn't have a military, we wouldn't have a debt now. The great depression was caused by war. The boom from the build-up during WWI (and the profit-hungry financial industry) grew the bubble until it popped. It took a second war to pull us out with even more deficit spending. Keynesian economics wasn't a call to deficit-spend in bad times, but a call to pay off the debt in good times. The borrow-and-spend Conservatives in the US use it wrong and blame the other side.
Social Security should have taken a Constitutional Amendment. But the effect is required. The democratic process proved people would rather pay taxes and not watch the old slowly starve to death.
What I most objected to, I think, is this idea where someone says, it is either the individual or the government who pays for something. There is no such distinction.
I pay individually for many of the fees for roads. Fuel taxes are paid individually. DMV fees are paid individually. Road subsidies from the feds are not paid indiviudally. I may pay $100 in taxes that go to the roads, but I didn't pay for them individually. They are aggregated from multiple sources, then re-distreibuted without thought or concern to which dollar came from which source.
There is no division between government money and individual money. It is all individual money,
By your definition, it would be just as valid to claim the opposite. The money isn't individual money when it's separated from the individual and mixed into a general fund. That it all came from individuals is unrelated to the ability to identify which individual it came from.
My son loved pink and fluffy before he got to school and was told by the other children that it was inapporpriate. Since sharing that story, I've heard from many parents with the same results. Pink and fluffy appeals to what parents teach their girl children to like.
Yeah, I'd bet that the definition is gender neutral things and colors that a tetrachromat would respond better to. Given the number of color blind boys, and tetrachromat girls, I could probably devise a test where girls would respond to an item more than boys, based on color alone.
I always go back to salt. You know why salt is bad for everyone? Because there's a segment of the population that salt is really really bad for. And when you don't know that, and throw everyone in a single group, you find salt is moderately bad for everyone (at least statistically). When the truth is that Africans didn't use salt for curing for thousands of years, as most of the rest of the world did, so salt has bad effects on the biology. So the average white person will see no ill effects from salt, despite studies proving otherwise.
Just because you find something interesting doesn't mean it proves what you think it means.
No. Take a child. Raise him without TV (videos, recorded TV shows, but no commercials that show specific genders playing with specific items). At age 5, take him to buy his school bag. He picks the pink one. Pink was his favorite color. Then, he gets to school, and the other 4-5 year olds make fun of him for having a "girl bag". His reason for liking pink? It's bright and pretty.
He's 8 now, and doesn't claim to like pink. But when only family can see, he dresses up in momma's pink.
It's not nature, it's nurture. Don't "force" anyone to be one way, but if you let them choose without knowing what the "norm" is, then many won't pick the norm. But we'll never know, because we force the norm on them before they get a choice to choose.
Girls are told that math is hard. Girls are steered away from math and science. If he's asking the question at age 4, he's probably already done lasting damage.
He claims that a moving non-object (a shadow, a reflection of light, or a mouse cursor) isn't real. They are real. They can be seen, they can be measured and defined. And they can move faster than the speed of light.
If you can't understand what I'm disputing in his comments, read my comments he replied to and tell me what he's disputing. If that's confusing, go up a few levels to my original comment, and his original objection, and tell me what he's objecting to in that one.
Someone else linked to a YouTube of a guy talking about shadows. I think they use shadows because, though the trailing edge of the shadow is "light" and moves faster than the speed of light with the shadow, people don't object to shadows moving fast because they understand a shadow has no mass, no energy, and no information. Everything true about the shadow is true about the "light" at the edge of the shadow (both leading and trailing).
But the light isn't moving, just the event horizon.
The illusion moves faster than the speed of light then. And it's not an "illusion". It's real. It's tangible. It's measurable. And it can be viewed from different frames of reference.
The point of light on the cloud (or moon) will move faster than the speed of light, but it isn't information, mass or energy that's moving, so it doesn't violate any relativity.
They even know they screwed it up when they went to tabs. I'm going to try inbox because I get emails all the time I want to delete later. "Offer of the week" emails I want to keep for the week, but delete after. I've never seen anything with a delayed delete, which inbox supposedly has. Or a reminder to delete, which is similar, but requires a click.
Because they wanted to avoid the discussion of whether information could travel faster than light. Perhaps one of the researchers kept making that distinction, so the ignorant reporter repeated it without knowing what it meant.
It does at least usefully point out that though "something" is traveling faster than light, information, mass and energy can't.
No, not love. I thought techies on a tech site would have learned something in physics class. What are they teaching these days, and is there an opening for roman_mir?
Picture scissors. The edges come together as they close. So increase the size of the scissors, and the speed you close them. Eventually the "point" where the scissors come together will eventually go faster than the speed of light.
It's "real". It's visible. And it isn't mass, energy, or information.
If you don't like that, take a laser. Point it at a cloud. Move the light as fast as you can. The point of light (as seen as the reflection on the cloud) can travel faster than the speed of light.
There's no burden on me to present any reasoned arguments. I'll just present the truth. Just because you don't like the truth (that you grew into a grumpy old Luddite) doesn't mean that I'm required to prove any specific points.
The amusing thing is that if you aren't really a Luddite, you will soon own an IoT item, if you don't already, and even if you are a Luddite and avoid anything that might be IoT-ish, you'll still use the IoT items of others. Some of the doors on stores are already IoT, so you may have already used them, even without knowing.
Slashdot Mirror
For me, same thing. I'll delete the movie deal of the week when it pops up out of date.
Between now and then, if I go to the movies, I'll search for "movie" and it'll be at the top of the list. Or something like that.
Oh, I grew up in communist Texas (where the Bushes learned their communism). The power company was owned by the state. The water company was owned by the city (and sewer as well). The Gas was also state, I think (I don't remember the company for the gas, but I think it was the same as the electric). And the phone was owned by a federal government established monopoly.
So if you count the monopoly as government controlled, then 100% of my utilities growing up in Texas were government owned.
Paid by taxes of fees is a separate issue than whether the providers were private or public companies.
After the board of directors and CxO, of course.
What irony? You had multiple grammatical errors. He pointed it out. I didn't see any grammatical errors in his post. Thus I don't see the irony. Can you point it out to me? The irony is when the person pointing out errors makes multiple themselves.
A company claims to be a person when it comes to rights and privileges, but not when it comes to responsibilities. The taxes aren't double-dipping if corporations are people. But if your argument is that corporations aren't people, you need to argue with the Supreme Court, not me.
We also didn't force anonymous vote on the people for the first 100 years or so.
The income tax was related to the birth of the standing military. The military caused most of the problems that exist in the US today. If we didn't have a military, we wouldn't have a debt now. The great depression was caused by war. The boom from the build-up during WWI (and the profit-hungry financial industry) grew the bubble until it popped. It took a second war to pull us out with even more deficit spending. Keynesian economics wasn't a call to deficit-spend in bad times, but a call to pay off the debt in good times. The borrow-and-spend Conservatives in the US use it wrong and blame the other side.
Social Security should have taken a Constitutional Amendment. But the effect is required. The democratic process proved people would rather pay taxes and not watch the old slowly starve to death.
What I most objected to, I think, is this idea where someone says, it is either the individual or the government who pays for something. There is no such distinction.
I pay individually for many of the fees for roads. Fuel taxes are paid individually. DMV fees are paid individually. Road subsidies from the feds are not paid indiviudally. I may pay $100 in taxes that go to the roads, but I didn't pay for them individually. They are aggregated from multiple sources, then re-distreibuted without thought or concern to which dollar came from which source.
There is no division between government money and individual money. It is all individual money,
By your definition, it would be just as valid to claim the opposite. The money isn't individual money when it's separated from the individual and mixed into a general fund. That it all came from individuals is unrelated to the ability to identify which individual it came from.
Would Walmart be as successful if they had to pay a living wage to keep employees?
Yes. But they can be more successful by taxing the middle class to make up for the sub-living wages paid.
So taxes should be "fair". I don't think that's ever really been a goal of them.
My son loved pink and fluffy before he got to school and was told by the other children that it was inapporpriate. Since sharing that story, I've heard from many parents with the same results. Pink and fluffy appeals to what parents teach their girl children to like.
Yeah, I'd bet that the definition is gender neutral things and colors that a tetrachromat would respond better to. Given the number of color blind boys, and tetrachromat girls, I could probably devise a test where girls would respond to an item more than boys, based on color alone.
I always go back to salt. You know why salt is bad for everyone? Because there's a segment of the population that salt is really really bad for. And when you don't know that, and throw everyone in a single group, you find salt is moderately bad for everyone (at least statistically). When the truth is that Africans didn't use salt for curing for thousands of years, as most of the rest of the world did, so salt has bad effects on the biology. So the average white person will see no ill effects from salt, despite studies proving otherwise.
Just because you find something interesting doesn't mean it proves what you think it means.
No. Take a child. Raise him without TV (videos, recorded TV shows, but no commercials that show specific genders playing with specific items). At age 5, take him to buy his school bag. He picks the pink one. Pink was his favorite color. Then, he gets to school, and the other 4-5 year olds make fun of him for having a "girl bag". His reason for liking pink? It's bright and pretty.
He's 8 now, and doesn't claim to like pink. But when only family can see, he dresses up in momma's pink.
It's not nature, it's nurture. Don't "force" anyone to be one way, but if you let them choose without knowing what the "norm" is, then many won't pick the norm. But we'll never know, because we force the norm on them before they get a choice to choose.
Girls are told that math is hard. Girls are steered away from math and science. If he's asking the question at age 4, he's probably already done lasting damage.
I have boys, and they do all the same things.
He claims that a moving non-object (a shadow, a reflection of light, or a mouse cursor) isn't real. They are real. They can be seen, they can be measured and defined. And they can move faster than the speed of light.
If you can't understand what I'm disputing in his comments, read my comments he replied to and tell me what he's disputing. If that's confusing, go up a few levels to my original comment, and his original objection, and tell me what he's objecting to in that one.
Someone else linked to a YouTube of a guy talking about shadows. I think they use shadows because, though the trailing edge of the shadow is "light" and moves faster than the speed of light with the shadow, people don't object to shadows moving fast because they understand a shadow has no mass, no energy, and no information. Everything true about the shadow is true about the "light" at the edge of the shadow (both leading and trailing).
But the light isn't moving, just the event horizon.
The illusion moves faster than the speed of light then. And it's not an "illusion". It's real. It's tangible. It's measurable. And it can be viewed from different frames of reference.
The point of light on the cloud (or moon) will move faster than the speed of light, but it isn't information, mass or energy that's moving, so it doesn't violate any relativity.
Define information. I think you are confused.
They even know they screwed it up when they went to tabs. I'm going to try inbox because I get emails all the time I want to delete later. "Offer of the week" emails I want to keep for the week, but delete after. I've never seen anything with a delayed delete, which inbox supposedly has. Or a reminder to delete, which is similar, but requires a click.
The apparent movement is faster than the speed of light. Nothing "travels" but something "moves".
Because they wanted to avoid the discussion of whether information could travel faster than light. Perhaps one of the researchers kept making that distinction, so the ignorant reporter repeated it without knowing what it meant.
It does at least usefully point out that though "something" is traveling faster than light, information, mass and energy can't.
http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
No, not love. I thought techies on a tech site would have learned something in physics class. What are they teaching these days, and is there an opening for roman_mir?
Event horizons.
Picture scissors. The edges come together as they close. So increase the size of the scissors, and the speed you close them. Eventually the "point" where the scissors come together will eventually go faster than the speed of light.
It's "real". It's visible. And it isn't mass, energy, or information.
If you don't like that, take a laser. Point it at a cloud. Move the light as fast as you can. The point of light (as seen as the reflection on the cloud) can travel faster than the speed of light.
They wanted to make the distinction that "things" can travel faster than light, but not mass or information.
There's no burden on me to present any reasoned arguments. I'll just present the truth. Just because you don't like the truth (that you grew into a grumpy old Luddite) doesn't mean that I'm required to prove any specific points.
The amusing thing is that if you aren't really a Luddite, you will soon own an IoT item, if you don't already, and even if you are a Luddite and avoid anything that might be IoT-ish, you'll still use the IoT items of others. Some of the doors on stores are already IoT, so you may have already used them, even without knowing.