So many choppy sentences starting with conjunctions. I actually had to re-read the last part several times to get what was going on.
Some of you may find it unsurprising that Kodi has swallowed piracy: a recent Sandvine study projects a Kodi device configured to access unlicensed content in a full six percent of North American households. The story of how a popular, open-source media player called XBMC became a pirate's paradise might; and, with a legal crackdown looming, the Kodi ecosystem's present may matter less than its uncertain future.
Because something includes unknown variables from poorly-understood inputs, we can't model it with precision greater than X.
You might know what direction it's going and the general order of magnitude, but not the precise number. The order of magnitude may be based in channels of 30 or 40 width--30, 900, 27,000 and so forth. So maybe you point somewhere up and to the right and say it's out there somewhere, but not out way straight up, and not out more horizontally.
That's the difference between not knowing what you're doing and not having the greatest scientific understanding of the whole system.
Part of the President's job is to bring Congress together to work on specific issues as a whole. Unfortunately, Congress wants to fight and play politics; the President doesn't have so much mothering power as just a giant god damned voice to make everyone in the world listen, and suddenly it becomes very uncomfortable when they're all looking at you--influence.
Maybe we should elect a Congress which intends to work for the American people, instead of just for its own interests. I'm not saying you can't do both; only that the priorities need straightening out. Obviously, a party which works in the interests of the people needs to keep itself elected to continue that important work--an imperative which fails when taken out so far as to do so at the expense of its own principles.
Franklin D. Roosevelt created the minimum wage and, a year later, announced a need to identify if an hourly or weekly minimum wage was truly bringing a yearly living income to the American worker.
That was over 80 years ago. Times change, and the effort to hold these things steady... well, it wasn't well organized. It's not that he didn't give people a fair wage; it's that, over much following history, he wasn't able to ensure people could keep it.
I suppose my vengeful ghost can't hover over Congress forever. I can create systems, ideals, and procedures to hold the income at the bottom to certain standards; I can't guarantee people won't eventually tear it down. Still, it's time we step up to put the Democratic party back on the tracks lain by Roosevelt; otherwise what outcome can you really expect?
Think of a 28-mile marathon. All runners run the same race, and all gain equal access to water and to the organization of the event itself. They aren't granted equal winnings, yet they are all given the means to participate. If one is injured, there is medical care brought to treat.
The same is true of my plan, in which a household with two adults, one working a minimum-wage job full-time brings home $31,109, and with both working for minimum-wage bring home $43,012; whereas a middle-class household at a $60,000 salary with two adults brings home $61,819; and a household with $1,000,000 of income brings home $661,241, versus today's system in which they bring in only $645,463.
There is a great incentive to work, for a full-time job triples the income of a single-adult household at just the minimum wage, and doubles that of a two-adult household. This is an incredible step up in stability and standard-of-living from the very bottom, yet the household is at least reasonably-stable to begin with.
The fact that a great deal of money is to be made by the very rich from my policies due to the new spending power of those who are in poverty--spending power which will allow them to buy their way up out of poverty, or so nearly out of poverty that our social services will expend little to hold them up--seems like a thing which represents capitalism in every sense.
True. There's nothing that's truly "fair"; but right now there's exactly nothing, and it's imbalanced.
We have an immense amount of wealth, and ever-growing standards-of-living. The middle-class gets wealthier, the rich get richer, the poor get some token, and... well, we get there by technical progress and trade. To make something, you must pay wages and payrolls; to pay those, you need revenue; and to get that, you need an adequate price. To lower prices--to make things affordable for the consumer--you must eliminate labor involved, and thus jobs.
It rolls around eventually. The jobs go away, the prices start coming down, the consumer buys more, we need labor to make more, jobs come back. Those jobs don't always come back to the same people; and, besides, those who fall in the path of progress lose their livelihoods for the benefit of us all.
Is it fair that they receive little compensation at all for this?
We work, we grow, and sometimes we fall. Even the unemployed serve a function in the economy as a reserve labor force--and they get there by being the ones who fall before progress. It seems that a small piece of productivity should go to all of us.
You can never call it truly fair; you can call it less-unfair, and more optimal.
It's not just wealthy western nations. We're actually making renewable energy sources cheaper than coal and gas--unsubsidized--by sheer technical progress. That's always been the problem: burning fossile fuel might or might not be causing something called "Climate Change"--a point of contention in political discussions--but you can't really do anything about it because making your $THING more-expensive means people get $THING from dirty-coal high-emissions import instead. US becomes poorer by going to Solar 30 years ago, China ramps up production and turns the Asian continent into one giant black cloud.
We took a third option and just tightened up emissions standards as technology became available to do so without compromising our economy. The Republicans complained, the Democrats took a careful hand, and the really left-wing liberals with no concept of anything just screamed that it wasn't enough. That's the best you can do.
Well, it was.
Like you noticed: the really low-emissions energy tech is just plain taking over. It's more viable economically now, and so will come into play without compromising our economy. Leading up to this, we had an offset program where solar generation produced credits which you could sell on the open market in a cap-and-trade scheme; and suddenly solar is so cheap that SRECs trade for $20 instead of $200. A massive amount of capacity sprung up in two years, and more is coming.
I want to preserve our agricultural land by moving off traditional farm subsidies and onto a scheme where we subsidize farmers to lay non-permanent Solar installation, and reduce the subsidy as the solar installation starts generating a profit. Need the ag land again? Get a crew to unbolt the panels, stack them in a nearby shed, pull up the racks, dismantle, store, and you have ag land. Actually tearing down a city costs more than our GDP; removing a non-fixed solar installation is a cheap job.
That will save the taxpayer the cost of farm subsidies; protect our agricultural reserve land from permanent destruction by urban development; and derive useful economic productivity from that land area--you know, land area in a place with lots of sun, because a farm is basically a solar food generation operation--instead of just waste expense trying to prevent its development. Because that economic productivity is electricity, it offsets our need for mercury-belching coal plants.
Leading-edge recouperating CAES--the kind that stores heat and uses it to expand the tanks, not the natural gas booster kind--will become common tech soon enough. It's cheaper than batteries, and hasn't taken off because we keep trying to use natural caves as compression tanks--folks keep selecting sandstone caverns, then finding out that won't work. Going to have to build an actual sealed storage tank underground. Batteries will still be more-expensive, but not 300x more-expensive; even so, hundred-million-dollar-scale R&D tech doesn't just happen at a fast pace, even with those kinds of potential profits, and with the technology pretty much ready-to-go. It's weird to see something that's current-generation technology held back by... well, technology. Paradox.
Put the two together and you get a bona fide solar grid for basically nothing. I'm so glad there are only 50,000 coal workers in the US, because they're right in the path of progress and a bigger industry would be a recession waiting to happen. We'll bleed the coal mining industry slowly, not overnight; and my Universal Dividend should help hold these people up and rebuild their local economies as we pick them apart. One can only hope--we are definitely going to profit from their loss, and we owe them for that.
Have you noticed that reading diverse news hurts? Sometimes your long-established viewpoints are wrong, and have to change, and it's physically painful?
That's why.
People don't want to be informed; they want reinforcement. They haven't learned to swallow the embarrassment of their failure and enjoy the burning sensation of their mind crying out against a violation of all it's held holy in its own little world, then finally rushing through the sensation of discovery of all kinds of new internal consistencies that strengthen and reinforce each other.
What? I totally want FaceID! I can keep my Android phone safe while hacking into encrypted iPhones by holding the phone up to someone's Facebook page! Then I can tell everyone I'm Zero Cool!
Corporate interests don't run the government; an incompetent party which believes taking money from the consumer and letting it trickle back down runs the government. The GOP genuinely believes they're doing great work for the American people.
Let that sink in.
Clearly, we could do better than the GOP tax plan; yet they believe it's the best. Does that not frighten a man to contemplate?
I wanted to run because I want to pull the Democratic party back to a path of sanity--back to something like FDR showed us in a party. What did I find when I started running? Many candidates and active politicians at state, local, and even Federal levels complaining that the Democratic party has no real leadership. Other people keep saying it before I do.
The Democrats need to remember they're not the Anti-Republicans and don't have to do everything to distinguish themselves from Republicans. They need to work toward the needs of Americans. Franklin D. Roosevelt said Americans deserve increased certainty of employment at a reasonable wage, and that American enterprise deserves a fair profit; and because the Republicans want to give business everything in the world at the expense of the working man, the Democrats have allowed themselves a casual stance of making business bleed because it's good politics. Does that sound like they care about the working man, or just the working man's vote?
I say, today, the American people deserve security in their lives and livelihood: they need a safety net under them. We should strive toward a fair wage, fair hours, and a fair share. Businesses can have a fair profit--so long as they pay their fair share.
The rich are of no concern; the 40 million Americans who cannot consistently find food, the over half-a-million who have no homes, those are our concern. High taxes are not an ends, not a goal to pursue; we must pursue an end to poverty and a levy of fairness to the working man.
Let's start by looking again at this GOP tax plan, and what we can do better. We can unify our anti-poverty efforts on the basis of a Universal Dividend, thus putting an end to homelessness and hunger in this country while reducing the tax burden by $600 billion. We can supply a public healthcare option for perhaps $200 billion, and take steps to slim that--perhaps even to the point that the new cost of Medicare and the public option together are lower than Medicare and Medicaid today, especially if we can bring down the price of generic prescription drugs and improve Medicare's method of price negotiation.
These efforts stabilize social security, reduce poverty, and give Americans a fair share tied to America's productivity. They reduce the tax burden, and even reduce spending. They even open an opportunity to reduce taxes on the wealthy, corporate income taxes, and even the regressive payroll tax--although corporate income taxes must always include paying into the Universal Dividend, so as to ensure capture of that fair share of GDP which we distribute to the American people.
How strong can the Republican party hold against a Democratic party which focuses on what the American people need, which exercises fiscal responsibility, and which doesn't wage needless blood war against the wealthy and the American enterprise? Much of the ideological basis of Republican support falls away.
Let's not forget the practical matters, either. Of $2,656 billion of Federal revenue brought by payroll and FICA, a 35% corporate tax rate brought $299.6 billion in 2016. With my Universal Dividend, it pays part of that into the Dividend itself, leaving only $168 billion. Gnawing away at that by the $5 and $10 billions ca
The nicotine exposure from second-hand smoke--much less second-hand vapors--is negligible.
You have B vitamins activating these receptors more-strongly.
I've studied buy-in and stakeholder management as specific technical skills. I'm well-aware that there's such a thing as "difficult to work with", although it's sort of relative.
It's just more people not realizing that folks only use these digital currencies as arbitrage for real currency. The whole idea is to sell people bitcoins or whatnot when they think they're going to be worth more, then buy them back in a slump. Wash, rinse, repeat, while everyone else gets poorer and you get richer.
Why wouldn't it? There are Type-C to micro-USB and Type-C to USB plugs. Just put a Type-C port on the device and have the appropriate cable.
There are EVM chip readers for smart phones as well, although most people don't pay through their smart phone--plenty of people pay using their smart phone, and you could still set up a Google Wallet and Android Pay type account: you'd have to call your bank to have the new trust set up, the same as you do today.
Perhaps. Thing is, there's actually very little identity theft occurring by physical possession of card. Generally, losing the card without realizing it means some cashier has it, rather than a dedicated criminal; as people are generally good folks, this usually gets your bank called, or you get called, or some such thing occurs. Credit cards are also fraud insurance: they spread the cost of charges made with a lost or stolen credit card across all consumers; with this being so little, the cost to each customer is practically-nothing--unlike the sum total of card-not-present fraud, which is unfathomably large.
Imagine if adding a $26,000 safety system to a car would save three people per year from minor injuries. Would it be worth mandating in all cars? Would it even be worth adding to your car? Why not pay $0.05/month for insurance and get a splint for that sprain instead, if it ever even happens?
Slashdot Mirror
He's obviously a well-versed legal professional as well, having issued a response in the nature of Arkell vs Pressdram.
So, on a 32-hour work week, would you prefer 6h24m days starting work at 10:30am, or four 8-hour days and a three-day weekend every week?
Remember when American Telecom and Telegraph renamed itself AT&T? Did you know DVD actually stands for DVD?
I'm just going to call it DST.
So many choppy sentences starting with conjunctions. I actually had to re-read the last part several times to get what was going on.
Some of you may find it unsurprising that Kodi has swallowed piracy: a recent Sandvine study projects a Kodi device configured to access unlicensed content in a full six percent of North American households. The story of how a popular, open-source media player called XBMC became a pirate's paradise might; and, with a legal crackdown looming, the Kodi ecosystem's present may matter less than its uncertain future.
Because something includes unknown variables from poorly-understood inputs, we can't model it with precision greater than X.
You might know what direction it's going and the general order of magnitude, but not the precise number. The order of magnitude may be based in channels of 30 or 40 width--30, 900, 27,000 and so forth. So maybe you point somewhere up and to the right and say it's out there somewhere, but not out way straight up, and not out more horizontally.
That's the difference between not knowing what you're doing and not having the greatest scientific understanding of the whole system.
Part of the President's job is to bring Congress together to work on specific issues as a whole. Unfortunately, Congress wants to fight and play politics; the President doesn't have so much mothering power as just a giant god damned voice to make everyone in the world listen, and suddenly it becomes very uncomfortable when they're all looking at you--influence.
Maybe we should elect a Congress which intends to work for the American people, instead of just for its own interests. I'm not saying you can't do both; only that the priorities need straightening out. Obviously, a party which works in the interests of the people needs to keep itself elected to continue that important work--an imperative which fails when taken out so far as to do so at the expense of its own principles.
Franklin D. Roosevelt created the minimum wage and, a year later, announced a need to identify if an hourly or weekly minimum wage was truly bringing a yearly living income to the American worker.
That was over 80 years ago. Times change, and the effort to hold these things steady ... well, it wasn't well organized. It's not that he didn't give people a fair wage; it's that, over much following history, he wasn't able to ensure people could keep it.
I suppose my vengeful ghost can't hover over Congress forever. I can create systems, ideals, and procedures to hold the income at the bottom to certain standards; I can't guarantee people won't eventually tear it down. Still, it's time we step up to put the Democratic party back on the tracks lain by Roosevelt; otherwise what outcome can you really expect?
Socialism doesn't work
This is a plan rooted firmly in capitalism.
Think of a 28-mile marathon. All runners run the same race, and all gain equal access to water and to the organization of the event itself. They aren't granted equal winnings, yet they are all given the means to participate. If one is injured, there is medical care brought to treat.
The same is true of my plan, in which a household with two adults, one working a minimum-wage job full-time brings home $31,109, and with both working for minimum-wage bring home $43,012; whereas a middle-class household at a $60,000 salary with two adults brings home $61,819; and a household with $1,000,000 of income brings home $661,241, versus today's system in which they bring in only $645,463.
There is a great incentive to work, for a full-time job triples the income of a single-adult household at just the minimum wage, and doubles that of a two-adult household. This is an incredible step up in stability and standard-of-living from the very bottom, yet the household is at least reasonably-stable to begin with.
The fact that a great deal of money is to be made by the very rich from my policies due to the new spending power of those who are in poverty--spending power which will allow them to buy their way up out of poverty, or so nearly out of poverty that our social services will expend little to hold them up--seems like a thing which represents capitalism in every sense.
What leads you to believe that?
True. There's nothing that's truly "fair"; but right now there's exactly nothing, and it's imbalanced.
We have an immense amount of wealth, and ever-growing standards-of-living. The middle-class gets wealthier, the rich get richer, the poor get some token, and ... well, we get there by technical progress and trade. To make something, you must pay wages and payrolls; to pay those, you need revenue; and to get that, you need an adequate price. To lower prices--to make things affordable for the consumer--you must eliminate labor involved, and thus jobs.
It rolls around eventually. The jobs go away, the prices start coming down, the consumer buys more, we need labor to make more, jobs come back. Those jobs don't always come back to the same people; and, besides, those who fall in the path of progress lose their livelihoods for the benefit of us all.
Is it fair that they receive little compensation at all for this?
We work, we grow, and sometimes we fall. Even the unemployed serve a function in the economy as a reserve labor force--and they get there by being the ones who fall before progress. It seems that a small piece of productivity should go to all of us.
You can never call it truly fair; you can call it less-unfair, and more optimal.
Welp my fault for clicking through the preview. People really must get their fair share, though.
What about just ensuring that people get their fair share?
A fair wage, fair hours, and a fair share. Once again, we must offer the American people a new deal; Hell, it's about time!
Pretty much this.
It's not just wealthy western nations. We're actually making renewable energy sources cheaper than coal and gas--unsubsidized--by sheer technical progress. That's always been the problem: burning fossile fuel might or might not be causing something called "Climate Change"--a point of contention in political discussions--but you can't really do anything about it because making your $THING more-expensive means people get $THING from dirty-coal high-emissions import instead. US becomes poorer by going to Solar 30 years ago, China ramps up production and turns the Asian continent into one giant black cloud.
We took a third option and just tightened up emissions standards as technology became available to do so without compromising our economy. The Republicans complained, the Democrats took a careful hand, and the really left-wing liberals with no concept of anything just screamed that it wasn't enough. That's the best you can do.
Well, it was.
Like you noticed: the really low-emissions energy tech is just plain taking over. It's more viable economically now, and so will come into play without compromising our economy. Leading up to this, we had an offset program where solar generation produced credits which you could sell on the open market in a cap-and-trade scheme; and suddenly solar is so cheap that SRECs trade for $20 instead of $200. A massive amount of capacity sprung up in two years, and more is coming.
I want to preserve our agricultural land by moving off traditional farm subsidies and onto a scheme where we subsidize farmers to lay non-permanent Solar installation, and reduce the subsidy as the solar installation starts generating a profit. Need the ag land again? Get a crew to unbolt the panels, stack them in a nearby shed, pull up the racks, dismantle, store, and you have ag land. Actually tearing down a city costs more than our GDP; removing a non-fixed solar installation is a cheap job.
That will save the taxpayer the cost of farm subsidies; protect our agricultural reserve land from permanent destruction by urban development; and derive useful economic productivity from that land area--you know, land area in a place with lots of sun, because a farm is basically a solar food generation operation--instead of just waste expense trying to prevent its development. Because that economic productivity is electricity, it offsets our need for mercury-belching coal plants.
Leading-edge recouperating CAES--the kind that stores heat and uses it to expand the tanks, not the natural gas booster kind--will become common tech soon enough. It's cheaper than batteries, and hasn't taken off because we keep trying to use natural caves as compression tanks--folks keep selecting sandstone caverns, then finding out that won't work. Going to have to build an actual sealed storage tank underground. Batteries will still be more-expensive, but not 300x more-expensive; even so, hundred-million-dollar-scale R&D tech doesn't just happen at a fast pace, even with those kinds of potential profits, and with the technology pretty much ready-to-go. It's weird to see something that's current-generation technology held back by... well, technology. Paradox.
Put the two together and you get a bona fide solar grid for basically nothing. I'm so glad there are only 50,000 coal workers in the US, because they're right in the path of progress and a bigger industry would be a recession waiting to happen. We'll bleed the coal mining industry slowly, not overnight; and my Universal Dividend should help hold these people up and rebuild their local economies as we pick them apart. One can only hope--we are definitely going to profit from their loss, and we owe them for that.
Have you noticed that reading diverse news hurts? Sometimes your long-established viewpoints are wrong, and have to change, and it's physically painful?
That's why.
People don't want to be informed; they want reinforcement. They haven't learned to swallow the embarrassment of their failure and enjoy the burning sensation of their mind crying out against a violation of all it's held holy in its own little world, then finally rushing through the sensation of discovery of all kinds of new internal consistencies that strengthen and reinforce each other.
competition out there is either unbiased or 'honest' (as in stating up front the bias held)
Bringing you the most liberal news reporting in the nation! This... is CNN!
Real conservative reporting! Fox News is on the scene!
Phil Schiller said they tested with 3D masks; he didn't say none of the masks fooled it. Still, point taken.
What? I totally want FaceID! I can keep my Android phone safe while hacking into encrypted iPhones by holding the phone up to someone's Facebook page! Then I can tell everyone I'm Zero Cool!
Corporate interests don't run the government; an incompetent party which believes taking money from the consumer and letting it trickle back down runs the government. The GOP genuinely believes they're doing great work for the American people.
Let that sink in.
Clearly, we could do better than the GOP tax plan; yet they believe it's the best. Does that not frighten a man to contemplate?
I wanted to run because I want to pull the Democratic party back to a path of sanity--back to something like FDR showed us in a party. What did I find when I started running? Many candidates and active politicians at state, local, and even Federal levels complaining that the Democratic party has no real leadership. Other people keep saying it before I do.
The Democrats need to remember they're not the Anti-Republicans and don't have to do everything to distinguish themselves from Republicans. They need to work toward the needs of Americans. Franklin D. Roosevelt said Americans deserve increased certainty of employment at a reasonable wage, and that American enterprise deserves a fair profit; and because the Republicans want to give business everything in the world at the expense of the working man, the Democrats have allowed themselves a casual stance of making business bleed because it's good politics. Does that sound like they care about the working man, or just the working man's vote?
I say, today, the American people deserve security in their lives and livelihood: they need a safety net under them. We should strive toward a fair wage, fair hours, and a fair share. Businesses can have a fair profit--so long as they pay their fair share.
The rich are of no concern; the 40 million Americans who cannot consistently find food, the over half-a-million who have no homes, those are our concern. High taxes are not an ends, not a goal to pursue; we must pursue an end to poverty and a levy of fairness to the working man.
Let's start by looking again at this GOP tax plan, and what we can do better. We can unify our anti-poverty efforts on the basis of a Universal Dividend, thus putting an end to homelessness and hunger in this country while reducing the tax burden by $600 billion. We can supply a public healthcare option for perhaps $200 billion, and take steps to slim that--perhaps even to the point that the new cost of Medicare and the public option together are lower than Medicare and Medicaid today, especially if we can bring down the price of generic prescription drugs and improve Medicare's method of price negotiation.
These efforts stabilize social security, reduce poverty, and give Americans a fair share tied to America's productivity. They reduce the tax burden, and even reduce spending. They even open an opportunity to reduce taxes on the wealthy, corporate income taxes, and even the regressive payroll tax--although corporate income taxes must always include paying into the Universal Dividend, so as to ensure capture of that fair share of GDP which we distribute to the American people.
How strong can the Republican party hold against a Democratic party which focuses on what the American people need, which exercises fiscal responsibility, and which doesn't wage needless blood war against the wealthy and the American enterprise? Much of the ideological basis of Republican support falls away.
Let's not forget the practical matters, either. Of $2,656 billion of Federal revenue brought by payroll and FICA, a 35% corporate tax rate brought $299.6 billion in 2016. With my Universal Dividend, it pays part of that into the Dividend itself, leaving only $168 billion. Gnawing away at that by the $5 and $10 billions ca
The nicotine exposure from second-hand smoke--much less second-hand vapors--is negligible. You have B vitamins activating these receptors more-strongly.
I've studied buy-in and stakeholder management as specific technical skills. I'm well-aware that there's such a thing as "difficult to work with", although it's sort of relative.
Imagine if, rather than creating a whole new desktop environment, they'd just improved Gnome's scaling.
It's going to be fun when they try to explain Mir.
It's just more people not realizing that folks only use these digital currencies as arbitrage for real currency. The whole idea is to sell people bitcoins or whatnot when they think they're going to be worth more, then buy them back in a slump. Wash, rinse, repeat, while everyone else gets poorer and you get richer.
Why wouldn't it? There are Type-C to micro-USB and Type-C to USB plugs. Just put a Type-C port on the device and have the appropriate cable.
There are EVM chip readers for smart phones as well, although most people don't pay through their smart phone--plenty of people pay using their smart phone, and you could still set up a Google Wallet and Android Pay type account: you'd have to call your bank to have the new trust set up, the same as you do today.
Perhaps. Thing is, there's actually very little identity theft occurring by physical possession of card. Generally, losing the card without realizing it means some cashier has it, rather than a dedicated criminal; as people are generally good folks, this usually gets your bank called, or you get called, or some such thing occurs. Credit cards are also fraud insurance: they spread the cost of charges made with a lost or stolen credit card across all consumers; with this being so little, the cost to each customer is practically-nothing--unlike the sum total of card-not-present fraud, which is unfathomably large.
Imagine if adding a $26,000 safety system to a car would save three people per year from minor injuries. Would it be worth mandating in all cars? Would it even be worth adding to your car? Why not pay $0.05/month for insurance and get a splint for that sprain instead, if it ever even happens?