Think about it. Sexual intercourse exists scientifically , in nature for a single purpose, propagation of the species?
Friends and family occur because of oxytocin release and dopamine responses. Sex is generally a rewards-driven response engaged due to impulse and reinforced due to pleasure: most intelligent animals will respond to a sexual reward strongly by establishing a behavior likely to repeat the sexual reward, and will ignore such a reward if a direct stimulus (e.g. cocaine) is available. We've seen this with bonobo, whereby a female bonobo will offer sexual favors (including oral sex) to get food from a male bonobo--and the male will actually give up the food to get sex!
Nothing on this planet engages in sex with the intent to reproduce except the occasional human trying to fulfill a long-term plan of some romantic ideal of a family life in which a child is basically an object created for the purpose of furthering one's own ego. Reproduction is incidental to the desire for pleasure, self-gratification, and social acceptance.
I've got a better tax system in the works, designed to automatically lower your effective tax rate if you don't get rich as fast as the Nation gets rich.
It also has the top tax rate as its final factor, meaning you can raise taxes...on everybody. Go from 40% to 50%? The richest of the rich might pay 50% in taxes (a 25% proportional increase); the poorer folks who were paying 8% are also now paying 10%. We decide the shape of our progressive curve, and then we're all in it. I like this tax social contract.
I also factored in a baseline benefit that pays a fair share of all income to each adult. That's GNI-per-Adult (potential worker) rather than per-Capita. The tax rate at the bottom is effectively negative. That one's starting to get some attention in particularly high circles: it immediately ends poverty in the US without distorting the socioeconomic hierarchy (no weird Communist ideals of everyone earning equal income--a Lorenz curve with a slope of 1). It's still not enough; I don't believe I've solidified the interest of powerful-enough individuals that I no longer matter, but I'm getting close.
I also created a similar Corporate Tax Rate strategy that ensures the right to a fair and reasonable profit in American enterprise. Most commodity businesses make about 8%; so at 8%, maybe your tax rate is 25%-30%. If we set the top of the curve to 50%, it could be that a corporation making 10% is paying 35%, one making 12% is paying 38%, and one with a 25% profit margin is paying 50% of their income in profits. Because of the way we handle corporate taxes--alternative minimum tax and a carry-back of net operating loss for two years, forward for 20--businesses with necessarily-wide risk margins can profit 45% one year and lose 25% in a future year and essentially be taxed based on their long-running average of 8% or 12% or whatever it is.
So imagine that. Your income tax rate is based on the percentage of the per-capita income--modified by OECD adult equivalence (no personal/dependent exemptions)--and so you are taxed based on if you receive more or less of the benefit of society. You get a baseline fair share of the per-adult taxable income (and a minimum-wage tied to the per-adult gross national income). Corporations pay increased taxes when they have large, unreasonable profit margins, and get a tax break when they run on razor-thin margins (not much to tax anyway).
This idea of a fair income tax, fair minimum wage, and a fair share might be the most important advancement in political philosophy since the ideal of popular sovereignty, but we shall see. I came up with it, after all, so it can't really be that significant.
Yep. I'm good for eliminating sales and payroll taxes, although I have a plan for a public option that levies a payroll tax if an employer doesn't provide affordable care or if the employee doesn't buy into the employer's healthcare and goes on the PO (it shouldn't be cheaper for your employer to offload to the taxpayer). For the unemployed, self-employed, or employed without any healthcare offered, the individual doesn't pay the premium at all; if the individual has affordable care through the employer and decides to not take it, they pay the same premium (and the employer pays a payroll tax equivalent to the cost they would normally pay).
Aside from that, I've seriously considered punting OASDI up to the top tax bracket as an income tax. It's a bit more complex than that, but I just don't like payroll taxes. They backshift.
When a police officer unnecessarily places a suspect in a painful and potentially-injurious hold, the suspect naturally will attempt to resolve the pain by moving in a way as to reduce the pressure. This is essentially fighting with the officer and resisting arrest. I've watched police officers throw compliant suspects to the ground, drag them several meters, and then force them roughly into handcuffs--they weren't compliant after the officer initiated the use of force.
The use of such force as pulling, pushing, and running away is not harmful to the officer or the community. It may result in a few bruises and scrapes, but that's about all. Violent attack, the use of a weapon, hostage situations, theft (such as of a bicycle), and so forth are, on the other hand, escalated crimes which are chargeable and dangerous. Failure to surrender to the nearest police officer at the moment you become aware of a warrant for your arrest is essentially similar to resisting arrest without committing these dangerous crimes in the process.
It is the nature of all humans to seek freedom and liberty. Fear of arrest is common due to the current perception of police brutality and police power dynamic--that they can say whatever they want and they are de-facto unimpeachable truth--and so the nature of humans to avoid arrest is obvious. While this nature may affect the immediate likelihood of probation and parole, it seems to me that resisting arrest (and escaping prison) are not matters for which we should have the power to issue sentence.
By implementing as the standard in the United States no less than full compliance with the Nelson Mandela Rules and Dynamic Security, we will reduce the sense of insecurity among prisoners, including those facing arrest. This reduces conflict between officers of the law and those taken into legal custody, and speeds rehabilitation so as to reduce crime in total by aligning our justice system with the needs of human dignity and thus developing people as productive members of society.
As such, it does not seem sensible to me that resisting arrest and escaping prison should be criminal per se. Such things might impact your immediate likelihood for parole.
We can definitely arrest the operators of private prisons if they don't meet the minimum Federal standards. It's not up for Constitutional debate or for an evaluation of the risk of loss of Federal grants. You run your prisons humanely or we throw you into Federal prison so you can see how to properly run one.
I'm not a Democrat (and didn't vote for Clinton, either of them)
I am a Democrat, and didn't vote in 2016 because the lesser of two evils isn't my voting strategy. Nevada has a "None of these Candidates" option so you can claim you voted even when that happens. Hillary wrote a book about how it's everybody else's fault she lost; do you want that for President?
I would have voted for Bill--I did vote for Bill, but it didn't count because I was like seven.
I'd go for Elizabeth Warren or even Joe Kennedy--for different reasons. I have suggested others, but one of them practically bit my head off because she didn't want to be a politician, much less President--there are a few of us running this year with that position, but damn, something must be done and nobody is doing the right something (which is how several of us ended up as Congressional candidates with no prior political experience).
I read the Federalist Papers once. There was a section about how States should have a militia because redneck hicks might try an uprising and the Federal Government shouldn't have to bother sending in an army when Pennsylvania can call up their own Pennsylvanian Militia to put Pennsylvania savages back in their place.
Somehow, a lot of people seem to interpret this as a lament that Pennsylvania savages might one day find themselves not capable of fighting the Pennsylvania Militia and the United States Military, hence the second amendment.
Meanwhile, George Washington was actually leading the Federal Military to crush rebellion over a whiskey tax, talking about how a well-regulated Militia would allow the States to crush said rebels themselves, and totally-unaware that the Union Army would one day have to crush the rebellion of the States themselves.
Can you coil the wire in a way that it generates a self-opposing magnetic field that limits the amps?
Yes, that's an inductor. It prevents AC from passing while allowing DC to pass. Basically, inductors resist change in current by storing energy in a magnetic field, which collapses as the current shrinks and thus induces a higher voltage, raising the current (holding it steady). The bright flash of light you saw was from the voltage increasing as the magnetic field finally collapsed entirely, whereby the voltage of the capacitor could no longer produce enough current flow to generate a magnetic field in the inductor, and so the inductor dumped all remaining power at once.
Basically, an inductor allows you to lower the voltage of the circuit without creating as much heat, in some cases. The inductor will actually dissipate energy as heat. It functions as a short circuit when passing DC. If you connect an inductor to a capacitor, the current starts to oscillate--it creates AC from DC.
Sounds like they don't want to implement a zero-tolerance policy, and want to give themselves the "context" excuse so they can still take action against people who are unruly and terrible. If only our schools and legislatures were run by these people.
Try to give a nuanced answer as to why this bill is counter productive and very few people will listen.
Generally, very few people don't listen; speak up.
People got pissed at our State Senate recently for trying to put enormous penalties for violent and sexual crime re-offenders, with mandatory minimums. One Senator (yes, it was Zirkin) told me there were no mandatory minimums because the "no judge shall issue a sentence less than the minimum defined for these crimes" line leaves them open for review; of course, another clause says that these people aren't eligible for parole until they've served those minimums, or 60% of their sentence--whichever is larger.
Here's a hint: you put them in prison; you didn't implement a prison system that turns them into productive citizens, even though that's been done in Norway, Ireland, and North Dakota; you dumped them out on the street with no aid, after locking them in cages and treating them like animals, turning them into worse criminals; and now you want to put them back in the cage because they re-offended. What did you think was going to happen?!
No, Senator, this is your fault. Stop building prisons and showing tough sentences and start rolling out dynamic security, inmate diversion, stronger and better parole programs, and prison-to-productivity pipelines.
"We're going to put violent rapists who commit rape again in prison for a lot longer" sounds great. So did the whole end-run around due process (the bill allowed courts to introduce evidence of other crimes not prosecuted so as to influence the sentencing--5-20 years, and we have too little evidence to prosecute the other 5 times you did this, but hey, we'll put you in prison for 20 years because of those too!). Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way and you're just making the problem worse.
People aren't stupid; nobody's willing to stand up and do the right thing.
I need to have a talk with Madaleno (he voted for this and is running for Governor) soon. If he doesn't shift position lickity-split, he's not getting my vote. This is coming up in my endorsement interview with central labor this week, as well; even if they don't endorse me, I intend to shift their criminal justice reform stance (which is forward, but barely), and maybe send them after these people. It might not be good for your career when a Congressional Candidate mentions in public needing to work with the State governor and legislature as part of a major criminal justice reform effort and has some unfortunate reservations about your recent position on the issue.
Legally, we have to go and make a best-effort attempt to get the name, address, and employer of the donor. If the contribution is small enough, it's kept; if not or it's suspected illegal, it's disbursed by either returning, not cashing (check), or donating to charity or the US Treasury for deposit in the General Fund.
My point was more that a large volume of calls is a public nuisance, whereas a small volume of calls is likely not worth your effort to try and get rid of, and you may as well just wave them away or otherwise engage with the political process for the 45- and 60-day windows. What's "large" and "small" is a matter of personal taste.
These people didn't pass this because voters were demanding it; they passed it because they have no idea what they're doing.
My answer to the financial thing is to simply eliminate poverty. Right now I'm working on a completely-new approach to tax and income policy. I've figured out a replacement for tax brackets and personal exemptions, and possibly the Standard Deduction. I'm not sure if there's an alternative to the Mortgage Interest deduction or SALT deductions (these were big topics for the GOP's tax plan, and were shot down because there's no compensating mechanism); and tax-deferred savings--401(k) and IRA--will always require an above-line deduction from AGI, so you can't eliminate deductions entirely anyway.
The whole thing started as a Universal Dividend I designed to end all homelessness and hunger in the United States, and eventually turned into rebukes against the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, stronger income equity programs, and a minimum wage that doesn't leave the poorest to stay just as poor while the rest of us get richer.
I don't doubt there will still be prostitutes anyway; I just figure there will be fewer, as the ones desperate for survival will suddenly be secure and capable of surviving without resorting to prostitution. Those already affected probably won't surface out of it so easily; but the flow of new, desperate Americans resorting to such means will stop, probably in its entire. Likewise, those being forced into it by criminal parties will have the financial means to flee and make a stable life somewhere out of reach (or have the police involved and not worry about where they're going afterwards).
Freedom and security are the solution to this problem.
Kind of, but not really. Public information (e.g. FEC donor data) can't be used for leads; we legally have to get a lead, then use public information to correlate. That's why there's this whole Rube Goldberg machine of subscriber list sharing and sale.
The Federal DNC registry doesn't apply to politicians, although I filter my lists anyway (I'll put those folks last, and I'll leave off the non-voting donors if I'm well-funded; voters are frequently happy to talk to someone about their needs anyway). Robokiller advertises themselves heavily as being ready to block political robocalls, with the obvious caveat that they're trying to sell you something which might actually work, or might not.
For $3/month, you might be better off just donating $10 to someone's campaign and dealing with it, as long as you're not getting inundated with political calls. If you're getting 2-3 a day, well... engagement in the democratic process is one thing, but daily and non-stop harassment is just asinine. We're supposed to keep lists of who we already called and not pester them again (that's what e-mail is for!).
I don't consent to political campaigns calling me up during election season. But there are public records and they've been doing this for decades
Actually, we can't use them.
To call or e-mail you, I have to purchase a list of contact data from an appending service. These in turn get them from data warehouses, who get them by purchasing from organizations who directly connect with those persons.
You know that thing where your contract says your information "may be shared with partners" or some such?
You sign up for a service or donate to a charity. Hell, a politician knocks on your door and you sign up for their Web page.
They build a giant database of contact information and voter/donor/volunteer/user/etc research.
That information gets shared or sold to other organizations--two wildlife charities might mutually exchange their lists under NDA so they both benefit from greater access to donors.
The information not under such sharing generally gets sold.
We pay 3 cents per successful record append to turn your voter history (purchased from the State for use only in conjunction with a political campaign) and information into contact info. Name and address go in, phone numbers and e-mails come out. Donor information, social networking profiles, and the like might come along with that, too.
Yes, you consented to this. Unfortunately, we let people consent to far too much without requiring them to understand the ramifications, or putting a timer on that data so it has to go away after a few years. We should have a small number of certified data warehouses who can buy, aggregate, and provide information, with limits on where it can come from, how long it can be stored, and how aggregate information can be disseminated. instead, everyone is a data warehouse, and they sell and distribute the information however they want.
It's really a question of what we can give up. There's likely a sweet spot where you've only lost a little functionality, and can work around that easily, while gaining plenty of privacy; and then there's that last bit of privacy to gain, but cutting deeper starts rapidly shoving us back into the 90s where all this convenience wasn't around while not protecting us very much more at all. The first step is to identify that range and abut up to it; the second is to determine what protections we need and what we have to sacrifice to get them.
The most extreme example would be eliminating so much data sharing that OAUTH2 isn't a thing: you can't sign up to services with Google or use things like Disqus because of strict data privacy laws preventing the kind of sharing that this requires. Obviously, we're not going that far: those kinds of conveniences require very little data sharing, and it's obvious what's shared of the necessary things (i.e. your e-mail address, or some unique identifier; if it fills in your name, you can actually see that).
I'm most-concerned with background collection and retention. You got on Slashdot. Slashdot has a Facebook log-in thing. Facebook is able to track your activity here because there's a Facebook pixel--even if you're anonymous. That's stuff around which we need strict controls and won't lose much for it, so that's going right at the top of my list.
Except the cost of the battery is a sunk cost if you need the car and the wear&tear to the battery will probably be less than 5% difference.
I asserted it's a 410% difference in usage if it's an added 60% cycling per day. That's putting a total 200,000 miles on the battery in 5 years. The average age of a car on the road today is 11.5 years.
You're basically suggesting these batteries can last 33 years of average driving and still be of average roadworthiness, and so it's okay to burn them 3-5 times faster.
on average the Model S lost about 5 percent of their power in the first 50,000 miles and that the degradation then slowed. Tesla's Model S hasn't been available longer than four years, but among several with 100,000-plus miles, the battery pack degradation was less than 8 percent
So we're looking at putting maybe 23% wear on in 5 years, losing 50 miles of range. The average car on the road will have lost 100 miles of range or more. For less-expensive, smaller-capacity batteries, the loss will be larger (same amount of power cycling, smaller total charge cycle span, greater number of charge cycles).
Yes, after being told by everyone in the freaking world--police, investigators, sex trafficking experts--that it will actually cause more harm to victims of sex trafficking and make it harder for police to find them and intervene.
There are a ton of proposals out there that actually do things like put more funding up for investigation resources. FOSTA covers up the problem so we don't have to look at it, and causes it to fester even worse. People will die for this. 15-year-old hookers will be pimped and beaten with no hope of rescue.
I intend to engage as many experts as I can find to craft something actually useful, and repeal and replace this stupid and broken piece of legislation. Notice that Ron Wyden is again the only sane man in the room. I like Elizabeth Warren, but this is facepalm.
Spotify uses Vorbis, although we're all trying to get them to switch to Opus.
Similarly, I want the FDR Museum to switch its sound archives to Opus. I might buy their lossless original digital files, de-noise them with Audacity, Opus them, and republish them so the library can have the cleaned-up versions. Problem is they're $12.75 each and there are like 314 of them and they'd cost $4,000. Likewise, some of these aren't public domain and can't be rebroadcast.
Opus contains a CELP algorithm component that performs like Speex on speech data, and a general psychoacoustic algorithm like Vorbis on the remaining data. It's prone to vastly-superior compression rates at high quality. It's also better-suited for hardware decoding than Vorbis (uses a lot less RAM).
400 hours of speech would likely encode to little over a gigabyte at decent quality. 400 hours of music is more like 15 gigabytes.
I think it's more like devising a method of limiting things to 15 amps
You do that by decreasing voltage or increasing resistance--and with resistance, power dissipation (heat). An incandescent light bulb functions as a current limiter: the higher the voltage, the hotter the tungsten wire gets, increasing resistance and decreasing current flow, and thus radiating more heat.
This would then be accomplished by limiting the DIFFERENCE in the voltages of the batteries and the SC
Yeah, that's just voltage.
Increasing the battery voltages continuously, as the voltage steadily increases across the SC, and keeping the difference at 5 volts
That's a five-volt power source.
Let's say you have a voltage source which, if connected to ground, is 5 volts. You have another power source which, if connected to ground, is 5,000 volts. Cool, right?
Now let's say you connect your 5V power source across a wire. The voltage potential is 5V, and you get 5V across the wire.
Now, if you connect your 5,000V power source via a wire to a power sink that's 4,995V when measured against ground, what you have is... a 5V power source.
Both of these are equivalent: the same amount of voltage and current are applied against that wire in either case.
In other words: 5 volts means the difference in voltage between source and sink is 5 volts. That source and sink can be a trillion volts and a trillion minus five volts; that's five volts. That's the same five volts as the five volts powering the SSD inside your computer.
At the molecular level, you're already heating individual atoms. Your entire bank is going to heat up at 750kW.
What you describe is like saying you should be able to fly by pulling your right leg up, then your left leg, then quickly jerking to pull your right leg up before you fall, and repeat.
Slashdot Mirror
Think about it. Sexual intercourse exists scientifically , in nature for a single purpose, propagation of the species?
Friends and family occur because of oxytocin release and dopamine responses. Sex is generally a rewards-driven response engaged due to impulse and reinforced due to pleasure: most intelligent animals will respond to a sexual reward strongly by establishing a behavior likely to repeat the sexual reward, and will ignore such a reward if a direct stimulus (e.g. cocaine) is available. We've seen this with bonobo, whereby a female bonobo will offer sexual favors (including oral sex) to get food from a male bonobo--and the male will actually give up the food to get sex!
Nothing on this planet engages in sex with the intent to reproduce except the occasional human trying to fulfill a long-term plan of some romantic ideal of a family life in which a child is basically an object created for the purpose of furthering one's own ego. Reproduction is incidental to the desire for pleasure, self-gratification, and social acceptance.
I've got a better tax system in the works, designed to automatically lower your effective tax rate if you don't get rich as fast as the Nation gets rich.
It also has the top tax rate as its final factor, meaning you can raise taxes...on everybody. Go from 40% to 50%? The richest of the rich might pay 50% in taxes (a 25% proportional increase); the poorer folks who were paying 8% are also now paying 10%. We decide the shape of our progressive curve, and then we're all in it. I like this tax social contract.
I also factored in a baseline benefit that pays a fair share of all income to each adult. That's GNI-per-Adult (potential worker) rather than per-Capita. The tax rate at the bottom is effectively negative. That one's starting to get some attention in particularly high circles: it immediately ends poverty in the US without distorting the socioeconomic hierarchy (no weird Communist ideals of everyone earning equal income--a Lorenz curve with a slope of 1). It's still not enough; I don't believe I've solidified the interest of powerful-enough individuals that I no longer matter, but I'm getting close.
I also created a similar Corporate Tax Rate strategy that ensures the right to a fair and reasonable profit in American enterprise. Most commodity businesses make about 8%; so at 8%, maybe your tax rate is 25%-30%. If we set the top of the curve to 50%, it could be that a corporation making 10% is paying 35%, one making 12% is paying 38%, and one with a 25% profit margin is paying 50% of their income in profits. Because of the way we handle corporate taxes--alternative minimum tax and a carry-back of net operating loss for two years, forward for 20--businesses with necessarily-wide risk margins can profit 45% one year and lose 25% in a future year and essentially be taxed based on their long-running average of 8% or 12% or whatever it is.
So imagine that. Your income tax rate is based on the percentage of the per-capita income--modified by OECD adult equivalence (no personal/dependent exemptions)--and so you are taxed based on if you receive more or less of the benefit of society. You get a baseline fair share of the per-adult taxable income (and a minimum-wage tied to the per-adult gross national income). Corporations pay increased taxes when they have large, unreasonable profit margins, and get a tax break when they run on razor-thin margins (not much to tax anyway).
This idea of a fair income tax, fair minimum wage, and a fair share might be the most important advancement in political philosophy since the ideal of popular sovereignty, but we shall see. I came up with it, after all, so it can't really be that significant.
Yep. I'm good for eliminating sales and payroll taxes, although I have a plan for a public option that levies a payroll tax if an employer doesn't provide affordable care or if the employee doesn't buy into the employer's healthcare and goes on the PO (it shouldn't be cheaper for your employer to offload to the taxpayer). For the unemployed, self-employed, or employed without any healthcare offered, the individual doesn't pay the premium at all; if the individual has affordable care through the employer and decides to not take it, they pay the same premium (and the employer pays a payroll tax equivalent to the cost they would normally pay).
Aside from that, I've seriously considered punting OASDI up to the top tax bracket as an income tax. It's a bit more complex than that, but I just don't like payroll taxes. They backshift.
Why is this criminal and not civil? What economic damages are there to reclaim in said civil suit?
Ah. No standing. Case dismissed!
Why would it be another thing entirely if the suspect has committed a crime but is not creating further danger to society?
Vote Stalin 1944! Adolf Hitler Very Bad Man(TM)!
Breaking! Josef Stalin wins popular vote, amazing electorate turn-out! The Will of the People served!
Perhaps, perhaps not.
When a police officer unnecessarily places a suspect in a painful and potentially-injurious hold, the suspect naturally will attempt to resolve the pain by moving in a way as to reduce the pressure. This is essentially fighting with the officer and resisting arrest. I've watched police officers throw compliant suspects to the ground, drag them several meters, and then force them roughly into handcuffs--they weren't compliant after the officer initiated the use of force.
The use of such force as pulling, pushing, and running away is not harmful to the officer or the community. It may result in a few bruises and scrapes, but that's about all. Violent attack, the use of a weapon, hostage situations, theft (such as of a bicycle), and so forth are, on the other hand, escalated crimes which are chargeable and dangerous. Failure to surrender to the nearest police officer at the moment you become aware of a warrant for your arrest is essentially similar to resisting arrest without committing these dangerous crimes in the process.
It is the nature of all humans to seek freedom and liberty. Fear of arrest is common due to the current perception of police brutality and police power dynamic--that they can say whatever they want and they are de-facto unimpeachable truth--and so the nature of humans to avoid arrest is obvious. While this nature may affect the immediate likelihood of probation and parole, it seems to me that resisting arrest (and escaping prison) are not matters for which we should have the power to issue sentence.
By implementing as the standard in the United States no less than full compliance with the Nelson Mandela Rules and Dynamic Security, we will reduce the sense of insecurity among prisoners, including those facing arrest. This reduces conflict between officers of the law and those taken into legal custody, and speeds rehabilitation so as to reduce crime in total by aligning our justice system with the needs of human dignity and thus developing people as productive members of society.
As such, it does not seem sensible to me that resisting arrest and escaping prison should be criminal per se. Such things might impact your immediate likelihood for parole.
I'm pushing for full implementation of Nelson Mandela Rules. It may be difficult to get the States on-board: the Federal Government can cut their funding, at best.
We can definitely arrest the operators of private prisons if they don't meet the minimum Federal standards. It's not up for Constitutional debate or for an evaluation of the risk of loss of Federal grants. You run your prisons humanely or we throw you into Federal prison so you can see how to properly run one.
Would you be for or against abolishing resisting arrest without creating a danger to the officer or the community as a separate crime on its own?
Leavenworth Smedry? What did he do this time? Is he late again?
he caused life-long Democrats like myself to leave the party in disgust.
Well get back here and help me fix it! We have work to do.
I'm not a Democrat (and didn't vote for Clinton, either of them)
I am a Democrat, and didn't vote in 2016 because the lesser of two evils isn't my voting strategy. Nevada has a "None of these Candidates" option so you can claim you voted even when that happens. Hillary wrote a book about how it's everybody else's fault she lost; do you want that for President?
I would have voted for Bill--I did vote for Bill, but it didn't count because I was like seven.
I'd go for Elizabeth Warren or even Joe Kennedy--for different reasons. I have suggested others, but one of them practically bit my head off because she didn't want to be a politician, much less President--there are a few of us running this year with that position, but damn, something must be done and nobody is doing the right something (which is how several of us ended up as Congressional candidates with no prior political experience).
Among the somethings that must be done, treating prisoners like human beings.
the Founding Fathers, and many others saw
I read the Federalist Papers once. There was a section about how States should have a militia because redneck hicks might try an uprising and the Federal Government shouldn't have to bother sending in an army when Pennsylvania can call up their own Pennsylvanian Militia to put Pennsylvania savages back in their place.
Somehow, a lot of people seem to interpret this as a lament that Pennsylvania savages might one day find themselves not capable of fighting the Pennsylvania Militia and the United States Military, hence the second amendment.
Meanwhile, George Washington was actually leading the Federal Military to crush rebellion over a whiskey tax, talking about how a well-regulated Militia would allow the States to crush said rebels themselves, and totally-unaware that the Union Army would one day have to crush the rebellion of the States themselves.
Can you coil the wire in a way that it generates a self-opposing magnetic field that limits the amps?
Yes, that's an inductor. It prevents AC from passing while allowing DC to pass. Basically, inductors resist change in current by storing energy in a magnetic field, which collapses as the current shrinks and thus induces a higher voltage, raising the current (holding it steady). The bright flash of light you saw was from the voltage increasing as the magnetic field finally collapsed entirely, whereby the voltage of the capacitor could no longer produce enough current flow to generate a magnetic field in the inductor, and so the inductor dumped all remaining power at once.
Basically, an inductor allows you to lower the voltage of the circuit without creating as much heat, in some cases. The inductor will actually dissipate energy as heat. It functions as a short circuit when passing DC. If you connect an inductor to a capacitor, the current starts to oscillate--it creates AC from DC.
Sounds like they don't want to implement a zero-tolerance policy, and want to give themselves the "context" excuse so they can still take action against people who are unruly and terrible. If only our schools and legislatures were run by these people.
Try to give a nuanced answer as to why this bill is counter productive and very few people will listen.
Generally, very few people don't listen; speak up.
People got pissed at our State Senate recently for trying to put enormous penalties for violent and sexual crime re-offenders, with mandatory minimums. One Senator (yes, it was Zirkin) told me there were no mandatory minimums because the "no judge shall issue a sentence less than the minimum defined for these crimes" line leaves them open for review; of course, another clause says that these people aren't eligible for parole until they've served those minimums, or 60% of their sentence--whichever is larger.
Here's a hint: you put them in prison; you didn't implement a prison system that turns them into productive citizens, even though that's been done in Norway, Ireland, and North Dakota; you dumped them out on the street with no aid, after locking them in cages and treating them like animals, turning them into worse criminals; and now you want to put them back in the cage because they re-offended. What did you think was going to happen?!
No, Senator, this is your fault. Stop building prisons and showing tough sentences and start rolling out dynamic security, inmate diversion, stronger and better parole programs, and prison-to-productivity pipelines.
"We're going to put violent rapists who commit rape again in prison for a lot longer" sounds great. So did the whole end-run around due process (the bill allowed courts to introduce evidence of other crimes not prosecuted so as to influence the sentencing--5-20 years, and we have too little evidence to prosecute the other 5 times you did this, but hey, we'll put you in prison for 20 years because of those too!). Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way and you're just making the problem worse.
People aren't stupid; nobody's willing to stand up and do the right thing.
I need to have a talk with Madaleno (he voted for this and is running for Governor) soon. If he doesn't shift position lickity-split, he's not getting my vote. This is coming up in my endorsement interview with central labor this week, as well; even if they don't endorse me, I intend to shift their criminal justice reform stance (which is forward, but barely), and maybe send them after these people. It might not be good for your career when a Congressional Candidate mentions in public needing to work with the State governor and legislature as part of a major criminal justice reform effort and has some unfortunate reservations about your recent position on the issue.
Legally, we have to go and make a best-effort attempt to get the name, address, and employer of the donor. If the contribution is small enough, it's kept; if not or it's suspected illegal, it's disbursed by either returning, not cashing (check), or donating to charity or the US Treasury for deposit in the General Fund.
My point was more that a large volume of calls is a public nuisance, whereas a small volume of calls is likely not worth your effort to try and get rid of, and you may as well just wave them away or otherwise engage with the political process for the 45- and 60-day windows. What's "large" and "small" is a matter of personal taste.
These people didn't pass this because voters were demanding it; they passed it because they have no idea what they're doing.
My answer to the financial thing is to simply eliminate poverty. Right now I'm working on a completely-new approach to tax and income policy. I've figured out a replacement for tax brackets and personal exemptions, and possibly the Standard Deduction. I'm not sure if there's an alternative to the Mortgage Interest deduction or SALT deductions (these were big topics for the GOP's tax plan, and were shot down because there's no compensating mechanism); and tax-deferred savings--401(k) and IRA--will always require an above-line deduction from AGI, so you can't eliminate deductions entirely anyway.
The whole thing started as a Universal Dividend I designed to end all homelessness and hunger in the United States, and eventually turned into rebukes against the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, stronger income equity programs, and a minimum wage that doesn't leave the poorest to stay just as poor while the rest of us get richer.
I don't doubt there will still be prostitutes anyway; I just figure there will be fewer, as the ones desperate for survival will suddenly be secure and capable of surviving without resorting to prostitution. Those already affected probably won't surface out of it so easily; but the flow of new, desperate Americans resorting to such means will stop, probably in its entire. Likewise, those being forced into it by criminal parties will have the financial means to flee and make a stable life somewhere out of reach (or have the police involved and not worry about where they're going afterwards).
Freedom and security are the solution to this problem.
Kind of, but not really. Public information (e.g. FEC donor data) can't be used for leads; we legally have to get a lead, then use public information to correlate. That's why there's this whole Rube Goldberg machine of subscriber list sharing and sale.
The Federal DNC registry doesn't apply to politicians, although I filter my lists anyway (I'll put those folks last, and I'll leave off the non-voting donors if I'm well-funded; voters are frequently happy to talk to someone about their needs anyway). Robokiller advertises themselves heavily as being ready to block political robocalls, with the obvious caveat that they're trying to sell you something which might actually work, or might not.
For $3/month, you might be better off just donating $10 to someone's campaign and dealing with it, as long as you're not getting inundated with political calls. If you're getting 2-3 a day, well... engagement in the democratic process is one thing, but daily and non-stop harassment is just asinine. We're supposed to keep lists of who we already called and not pester them again (that's what e-mail is for!).
I don't consent to political campaigns calling me up during election season. But there are public records and they've been doing this for decades
Actually, we can't use them.
To call or e-mail you, I have to purchase a list of contact data from an appending service. These in turn get them from data warehouses, who get them by purchasing from organizations who directly connect with those persons.
You know that thing where your contract says your information "may be shared with partners" or some such?
You sign up for a service or donate to a charity. Hell, a politician knocks on your door and you sign up for their Web page.
They build a giant database of contact information and voter/donor/volunteer/user/etc research.
That information gets shared or sold to other organizations--two wildlife charities might mutually exchange their lists under NDA so they both benefit from greater access to donors.
The information not under such sharing generally gets sold.
We pay 3 cents per successful record append to turn your voter history (purchased from the State for use only in conjunction with a political campaign) and information into contact info. Name and address go in, phone numbers and e-mails come out. Donor information, social networking profiles, and the like might come along with that, too.
Yes, you consented to this. Unfortunately, we let people consent to far too much without requiring them to understand the ramifications, or putting a timer on that data so it has to go away after a few years. We should have a small number of certified data warehouses who can buy, aggregate, and provide information, with limits on where it can come from, how long it can be stored, and how aggregate information can be disseminated. instead, everyone is a data warehouse, and they sell and distribute the information however they want.
It's really a question of what we can give up. There's likely a sweet spot where you've only lost a little functionality, and can work around that easily, while gaining plenty of privacy; and then there's that last bit of privacy to gain, but cutting deeper starts rapidly shoving us back into the 90s where all this convenience wasn't around while not protecting us very much more at all. The first step is to identify that range and abut up to it; the second is to determine what protections we need and what we have to sacrifice to get them.
The most extreme example would be eliminating so much data sharing that OAUTH2 isn't a thing: you can't sign up to services with Google or use things like Disqus because of strict data privacy laws preventing the kind of sharing that this requires. Obviously, we're not going that far: those kinds of conveniences require very little data sharing, and it's obvious what's shared of the necessary things (i.e. your e-mail address, or some unique identifier; if it fills in your name, you can actually see that).
I'm most-concerned with background collection and retention. You got on Slashdot. Slashdot has a Facebook log-in thing. Facebook is able to track your activity here because there's a Facebook pixel--even if you're anonymous. That's stuff around which we need strict controls and won't lose much for it, so that's going right at the top of my list.
Except the cost of the battery is a sunk cost if you need the car and the wear&tear to the battery will probably be less than 5% difference.
I asserted it's a 410% difference in usage if it's an added 60% cycling per day. That's putting a total 200,000 miles on the battery in 5 years. The average age of a car on the road today is 11.5 years.
You're basically suggesting these batteries can last 33 years of average driving and still be of average roadworthiness, and so it's okay to burn them 3-5 times faster.
on average the Model S lost about 5 percent of their power in the first 50,000 miles and that the degradation then slowed. Tesla's Model S hasn't been available longer than four years, but among several with 100,000-plus miles, the battery pack degradation was less than 8 percent
So we're looking at putting maybe 23% wear on in 5 years, losing 50 miles of range. The average car on the road will have lost 100 miles of range or more. For less-expensive, smaller-capacity batteries, the loss will be larger (same amount of power cycling, smaller total charge cycle span, greater number of charge cycles).
Yes, after being told by everyone in the freaking world--police, investigators, sex trafficking experts--that it will actually cause more harm to victims of sex trafficking and make it harder for police to find them and intervene.
There are a ton of proposals out there that actually do things like put more funding up for investigation resources. FOSTA covers up the problem so we don't have to look at it, and causes it to fester even worse. People will die for this. 15-year-old hookers will be pimped and beaten with no hope of rescue.
I intend to engage as many experts as I can find to craft something actually useful, and repeal and replace this stupid and broken piece of legislation. Notice that Ron Wyden is again the only sane man in the room. I like Elizabeth Warren, but this is facepalm.
My State senator is Barbara Robinson. She is fucking phenomenal. When criminal-justice-related stuff hits the Senate, she always votes the right way. Ron Wyden looks to be that in the US Senate, but for Internet- and technology-related things. The man actually blew up on an FBI director for claiming that encryption backdoors would be absolutely safe and viable.
Spotify uses Vorbis, although we're all trying to get them to switch to Opus.
Similarly, I want the FDR Museum to switch its sound archives to Opus. I might buy their lossless original digital files, de-noise them with Audacity, Opus them, and republish them so the library can have the cleaned-up versions. Problem is they're $12.75 each and there are like 314 of them and they'd cost $4,000. Likewise, some of these aren't public domain and can't be rebroadcast.
Opus contains a CELP algorithm component that performs like Speex on speech data, and a general psychoacoustic algorithm like Vorbis on the remaining data. It's prone to vastly-superior compression rates at high quality. It's also better-suited for hardware decoding than Vorbis (uses a lot less RAM).
400 hours of speech would likely encode to little over a gigabyte at decent quality. 400 hours of music is more like 15 gigabytes.
I think it's more like devising a method of limiting things to 15 amps
You do that by decreasing voltage or increasing resistance--and with resistance, power dissipation (heat). An incandescent light bulb functions as a current limiter: the higher the voltage, the hotter the tungsten wire gets, increasing resistance and decreasing current flow, and thus radiating more heat.
This would then be accomplished by limiting the DIFFERENCE in the voltages of the batteries and the SC
Yeah, that's just voltage.
Increasing the battery voltages continuously, as the voltage steadily increases across the SC, and keeping the difference at 5 volts
That's a five-volt power source.
Let's say you have a voltage source which, if connected to ground, is 5 volts. You have another power source which, if connected to ground, is 5,000 volts. Cool, right?
Now let's say you connect your 5V power source across a wire. The voltage potential is 5V, and you get 5V across the wire.
Now, if you connect your 5,000V power source via a wire to a power sink that's 4,995V when measured against ground, what you have is ... a 5V power source.
Both of these are equivalent: the same amount of voltage and current are applied against that wire in either case.
In other words: 5 volts means the difference in voltage between source and sink is 5 volts. That source and sink can be a trillion volts and a trillion minus five volts; that's five volts. That's the same five volts as the five volts powering the SSD inside your computer.
At the molecular level, you're already heating individual atoms. Your entire bank is going to heat up at 750kW.
What you describe is like saying you should be able to fly by pulling your right leg up, then your left leg, then quickly jerking to pull your right leg up before you fall, and repeat.