This reminds me of the healthcare debate, where most of the discussion seems to be about who pays what, various neat ideas for handling the funding, etc. Yet when people look at how much of whose time people use, as they take advantage of these two services, the amount of the bill is totally out of whack with expectations, and looks very weird next to pretty much every other industry, except for maybe defense/aerospace where you expect immense waste and corruption.
You could hire a personal valet who would be dedicated to serving just you, 8 hours a day, and somehow that costs less than hiring people to spend fewer hours per day in front of a room full of dozens of people to amortize the expense. And a day of valet labor costs more than 10 minutes of a doctor asking you a few questions and writing a prescription. You'd think the public would have have more questions about where the money is going, before they get all hung up on where it should come from.
But of course there actually is a good reason the teacher or doctor is so expensive: they have immense student loans which need to be paid off!;-) Except.. wait, the teacher isn't actually getting paid much, so even that doesn't explain anything.
The problem with education, is that it's expensive. And contrary to all expectations (we have the Internet now), it's getting more expensive instead of less expensive. Maybe what this governor really needs to do, is hire some accountants and auditors. Maybe raid Wal-Mart's management talent.
It's a theoretical option, but tomorrow over 95% of the country will vote against it. IMHO it seems like a good idea, but most people disagree, so at least for the next two years, that's not on the policy agenda. (So that leaves inflation-vs-taxes.)
It could become part of the next campaign agenda, though. If libertarians are willing to sacrifice their private lives to run in 2014, then reduction of spending could possibly happen some day.
But you're not GIVING anybody anything. We're talking about not TAKING as much.
The money was TAKEN when it was spent (or when the federal budget was allocated). Abstaining from taking is not an option on the table. Nobody currently serving in government, or one of the top two candidates for any particular offices, is seriously discussing not taking money away from innocent victims. Harm will occur.
Tax policies are the question of from whom it will be taken, not whether it will be taken. You can either increase inflation and harm everyone who uses money, or you can tax(harm) those who are able to pay, or you can go deeper into debt (the Republican plan) so that you can have even higher inflation and taxes a year later (harm everyone, in every way imaginable).
A little common sense will rule out the third option, so we're left with inflation or higher taxes. At that point, it is very natural for proponents of either approach to talk about losing this debate, as GIVING something to whose who benefit. That's not intellectual dishonestly; it's just spin.
I never understood that idea that giving a tax break to high salary people will stimulate the economy.
Of course you don't, because you called those people "high salary" instead of "job creator." And you called it "giving a tax break" instead of "increasing the deficit." So let's look at your words, after a first round of repairs:
I never understood that idea that increasing the deficit to job creators will stimulate the economy.
Bold "to" mine; as you can see, when we repair parts of the sentence, we get a nonsense preposition. Let's fix that too.
I never understood that idea that increasing the deficit for job creators will stimulate the economy.
Now we're getting somewhere. "Stimulate the economy" is kind of vague though... I can still see how neither you (nor anyone else) would understand that consequence. Let's keep going...
I never understood that idea that increasing the deficit for job creators, will increase the interest revenue for the Chinese bond investors who use their increasing leverage to become the equity holders, so that they can ultimately be the people who hire us to work in their third world sweatshops.
Aha. Once we get specific about what "stimulate the economy" really means, by explaining who benefits from lobbying the Republicans to act like they act, then you get something which makes sense, and then you will understand the cause-effect relationship between the policy and what it hopes to accomplish. So then:
I understand that increasing the deficit at the behest of foreign bond investors even if it's contrary to American interests, will increase their interest revenue so that they can become the primary equity holders of America, resulting in us becoming third world slaves, therefore I oppose Republic politics because it doesn't actually resemble conservative politics in any way (indeed, Barry Goldwater would laugh in those peoples' faces), and in fact it has no right/left component at all, being mere corruption rather than partisan idealism.
A much better test that would eliminate the CREEPY GUY factor, would be to just mount a camera on a tripod and place it by the doorway of a building or even in the middle of a crowd or public square and then walk away from it.
It should also be tried with a cute robot. One with a huge-eyed chlidish face, makes occasional cute noises and says praise-like things. (You're interesting. You're pretty! What a splendid example of a human.)
(And all its video goes to DHS and their monkeys make copies of the hot chick videos for masterbatory purposes, anything embarrassing/funny uploaded to youtube, etc.)
Surveillance cameras don't walk up to you and film you right in your face, nor do they sit down next to you while you're on the phone and record your conversation.
Like he said, that's the point. Surveillance cameras don't do those things, which is what makes them worse, since they violate privacy to the same degree, but more discreetly.
You're acting like it's ok that your snail mail censors reseal the envelops after they read all your mail, but there will be hell to pay if they leave the envelopes open, reminding you that your love letters have already been read by some stranger.
I'm not saying you shouldn't be pissed at this jerk. I'm saying you should be even more pissed at someone else, who maybe you had forgotten to be pissed at.
What makes you think he has no concept of personal space? Nobody ignorant of the concept would have known to do this shit. I, for one, kind of like this asshole.
That "somebody" is you. Both Intel and AMD offer CPUs with integrated graphics that would have blown you away ten years ago. Nvidia makes low-power chipsets too (ION/ION2) to further complicate things. Pick your favorite, from a diverse and competitive market.
Stop buying cards which draw hundreds of Watts, and the problem you're complaining about instantly vanishes. If your machine needs a 500W power supply, you have no one to blame but yourself.
It was overinflated by the war industrial effort, it was not a real solid economy.
Yeah, I think it's hilarious that people look at a situation where the populace is well employed, as being a good thing, even if they're employed doing something completely useless. Nazi Germany's pre-shooting-war war-buildup was a weakening economy, not a strengthening one. Every time someone spent time and metal to machine a part for an Me109 instead of a toaster, or burned a driver's time and a liter of fuel to transport ammunition instead of kegs of bock, the country became a little more impoverished.
"Don't worry if you don't believe in God. Just know that God believes in you."
That doesn't help anyone, because it just raises the question: How can I know God believes in me? Telling me "just know" isn't enough; if I had the capacity to accept that kind of dogmatic command, I'd probably already believe in gods.
Take it easy dude. Let's try to remember what this whole thing is for.
For all the bitching about secureboot, all currently known (yes, this can change) x86 machines which come with it, allow the user to turn it off. Remember the last 4 times you bought a new computer and, in fact, did diddle with stuff in the firmware, maybe to at least check the timings on your expensive Mushkin memory or whatever? Well, then, this whole article and the software it describes, isn't about you because you're going to turn off secure boot, making every aspect fo this boot loader irrelevant. You won't care about pressing enter, because you won't have to press enter.
This is for users who won't do that. This is for people who are dumber or lazier than your grandma's ditzy bridge partner, for which we do not expect them to follow any directions or do anything "extra" prior to using their computer. They're not installing headless servers. They're not "picky" except in the sense that they don't want to have to read or understand anything longer than one sentence. They can, and will, press enter.
The people who are opinionated enough to be "pretty fucking pissed" about pressing enter, will also tend to care enough to do what is needed in order to make pressing enter become unnecessary.
If there are any people left who become furious about pressing enter, but also feel entitled enough to refuse to turn off secureboot, but also feel entitled enough to refuse to install some other secureboot loader, those people can and should go fuck themselves. Or they can go buy a Mac. Or they can boot Windows, and (think about it) they will never notice that they're not running Linux. Just lie to them and tell them Windows 8 is Linux, and they will believe you, and the lie will never have any consequences because behind the blank smile they gave you when you lied, they already forgot what you said.
I was chatting with a local Libertarian congressional candidate at a protest, and he discussed a fantastic debate he'd had with his Green counterpart - that nobody really noticed, because no reporters covered it.
On the bright side, at least you have a Libertarian congressional candidate. For all the talk of voters blowing off their responsibility, in most races, there are no names on the ballot except those within the status quo parties. This November all I've got to vote for is a president. The rest will be lesser-of-two-evils crap.
Not many people run for office. Sometimes I wonder if things would get better, if just more people were interested in taking these jobs. Do you want to be a Congressman? I sure as hell don't.
Didn't mean to get anyone's panties in a bunch with my usage of that word. I didn't mean "liberal" as in "progressive" or left; I mean liberal as in interpreting it very broadly and loosely. Sort of like "be conservative in what you transmit and liberal in what you accept." That rule of thumb for people trying to conform to interface standards, is not actually saying something political.;-)
That was changed with the defacto passing of the 0th amendment, which states:
Congress shall have the power to do whatever it wants. It's not like we'll get mad at them and storm the capitol, or even decide to not re-elect them.
If Congress were getting bitch-slapped for unconstitutional behavior with each election, then it might be worth talking about the limit of their powers. But what I see is that We The People accept whatever they do, decade after decade. We don't act like the constitution means anything to us, so why should they? It is not the law.
It's "interstate commerce" and 99% of voters approve of Congress implementing any idea that they wish to, under that power. If people disagreed with this liberal interpretation, surely some of them would vote against the people who do it. But they don't, so it's the law.
Please remember that Charlie Sheen, Lindsay Lohan, etc are also "worthy" of media attention. It's not like the bar is high. They're nutjobs and so is your sheriff, and it's all fair game for worldwide entertainment, whether the nut represents all spectators or not.
It's just that people expect that kind of shit from drug-addled Hollywood types; that's a sort of baseline of entertainment. Maricopa county took it to the next step, beating Hollywood in two ways:
It's government, and better yet, the law enforcement part, which will always be special. Charlie Sheen as an actor, or even in government doing a job like Building Inspector, wouldn't be nearly as interesting as Charlie Sheen employed as Sheriff. I'm not even sure governor (there have been a few Hollywood types with that job title, though they weren't in the same league of insanity) would be quite as visceral as a nutjob sheriff.
It's an elected office, not thrust upon you. If Lindsay Lohan were your unelected police captain, people the world over might criticize your mayor. But if you elected Lindsay Lohan, some of her disgrace would be yours. Whether you think it's fair or not, we Americans do get some blame for the low class of people we elect, and your county elected a total scumbag and keeps on doing it. Nothing personal, but it's sort of like America after the 2004 re-election of Bush, or someone going out and buying Windows 98 (rather than being stuck with it as a preload), after already trying Windows 95. At some point, it's hard to not blame the victim, you know? And that makes it all the more shocking/entertaining.
To recap. Baseline: nut (already attention-worthy, right there). Add: power. Add: elected. Really, you don't understand the attention? No, I think you just regret the attention.;-)
The prosecution arguing for a transfer of intent and his lawyer arguing against.
Killing the lawyer is a crime, so intending to kill the lawyer is relevant when you end up killing the secretary by mistake. You were attempting to commit a crime, and you did.
Fucking your (non-minor) SO is not a crime, nor is inviting your SO to fuck. You were not attempting to commit a crime, but you did.
If there was "transfer of intent" then it should be a transfer of the intent to commit a non-criminal action.
Christ, panic mongers like yourself are the reason children are increasingly living in padded isolation boxes to protect them from big scary reality, and men are terrified to so much as speak to a child lest they be accused of molesting them. It's at the point now where, out of self-preservation, I would drive right by a child alone on the side of the road in the middle of winter. I would not stop to help. Why? Because if god forbid something happened to them later, or they decided to say something about me, the world would ruin my life for the greater good.
I want to say this in the nicest way possible, because it seems like you're well-intentioned, benevolent and compassionate, but: don't be a coward. Sure, it's true that some fuckwit might punish you for it, but it's also true that a meteorite might fall out of the sky and hit you on the head. Shit happens and life is full of risks, but think about it: risks like this one have their probabilities overblown, and the more realistic risk you face, comes from the fact that you're driving on a snowy road.
On average, chances are you'll end up rotting in your grave due to a driving accident, than rotting in prison because of a false accusation that was justified because you helped some little girl. Really.
Playing devil's advocate, but that would make for a good excuse - "ah, see, I sent it to my mum as well, must have been as mistake"
Whether the excuse was a manufactured insincere mistake or not, if it happened then I might vote to let the guy go anyway. Go ahead, try to bone a 14-year-old while you're on the phone to your mom trying to explain away the hott texxxt you sent her.
Oh shit, I just realized: there are probably people who are into that.
Computationally speaking, device-level encryption is probably sufficient, assuming there aren't any serious flaws found in AES-128.
And assuming you have a magic UI that is both convenient yet also somehow lets people enter keys of sufficient entropy. If the user is entering 4-digit-PINs or stuff like that for a key, then it doesn't matter how excellent the cipher is.
Some people have a hard time wrapping their heads around the idea that religion or the gods within the religion might simply be evil by human standards. If you suggest this, they'll shrug it off saying the God works in mysterious ways and it's not for them to understand it. And yet, they are human and practice that religion. God works in mysterious ways so therefore you must work in mysterious ways too? You must practice what you know to be evil, having faith that in some demented way that human brains can't understand, it's actually secretly good?
Maybe so. Once you open the door to faith, anything is possible. If you can believe in a god without there being any evidence, then why not believe that murder is ok, because some celestial accountant is putting into the "good" column for reasons that no jury would ever accept?
Slashdot Mirror
This reminds me of the healthcare debate, where most of the discussion seems to be about who pays what, various neat ideas for handling the funding, etc. Yet when people look at how much of whose time people use, as they take advantage of these two services, the amount of the bill is totally out of whack with expectations, and looks very weird next to pretty much every other industry, except for maybe defense/aerospace where you expect immense waste and corruption.
You could hire a personal valet who would be dedicated to serving just you, 8 hours a day, and somehow that costs less than hiring people to spend fewer hours per day in front of a room full of dozens of people to amortize the expense. And a day of valet labor costs more than 10 minutes of a doctor asking you a few questions and writing a prescription. You'd think the public would have have more questions about where the money is going, before they get all hung up on where it should come from.
But of course there actually is a good reason the teacher or doctor is so expensive: they have immense student loans which need to be paid off! ;-) Except .. wait, the teacher isn't actually getting paid much, so even that doesn't explain anything.
The problem with education, is that it's expensive. And contrary to all expectations (we have the Internet now), it's getting more expensive instead of less expensive. Maybe what this governor really needs to do, is hire some accountants and auditors. Maybe raid Wal-Mart's management talent.
It's a theoretical option, but tomorrow over 95% of the country will vote against it. IMHO it seems like a good idea, but most people disagree, so at least for the next two years, that's not on the policy agenda. (So that leaves inflation-vs-taxes.)
It could become part of the next campaign agenda, though. If libertarians are willing to sacrifice their private lives to run in 2014, then reduction of spending could possibly happen some day.
The money was TAKEN when it was spent (or when the federal budget was allocated). Abstaining from taking is not an option on the table. Nobody currently serving in government, or one of the top two candidates for any particular offices, is seriously discussing not taking money away from innocent victims. Harm will occur.
Tax policies are the question of from whom it will be taken, not whether it will be taken. You can either increase inflation and harm everyone who uses money, or you can tax(harm) those who are able to pay, or you can go deeper into debt (the Republican plan) so that you can have even higher inflation and taxes a year later (harm everyone, in every way imaginable).
A little common sense will rule out the third option, so we're left with inflation or higher taxes. At that point, it is very natural for proponents of either approach to talk about losing this debate, as GIVING something to whose who benefit. That's not intellectual dishonestly; it's just spin.
Of course you don't, because you called those people "high salary" instead of "job creator." And you called it "giving a tax break" instead of "increasing the deficit." So let's look at your words, after a first round of repairs:
Bold "to" mine; as you can see, when we repair parts of the sentence, we get a nonsense preposition. Let's fix that too.
Now we're getting somewhere. "Stimulate the economy" is kind of vague though ... I can still see how neither you (nor anyone else) would understand that consequence. Let's keep going...
Aha. Once we get specific about what "stimulate the economy" really means, by explaining who benefits from lobbying the Republicans to act like they act, then you get something which makes sense, and then you will understand the cause-effect relationship between the policy and what it hopes to accomplish. So then:
Repair complete.
Because they want to.
People who want things.
What kind of sick fuck doesn't play god every day? Go back to your cave (literally!) and eat your wild grass strains, assuming you can find any.
It should also be tried with a cute robot. One with a huge-eyed chlidish face, makes occasional cute noises and says praise-like things. (You're interesting. You're pretty! What a splendid example of a human.)
(And all its video goes to DHS and their monkeys make copies of the hot chick videos for masterbatory purposes, anything embarrassing/funny uploaded to youtube, etc.)
Like he said, that's the point. Surveillance cameras don't do those things, which is what makes them worse, since they violate privacy to the same degree, but more discreetly.
You're acting like it's ok that your snail mail censors reseal the envelops after they read all your mail, but there will be hell to pay if they leave the envelopes open, reminding you that your love letters have already been read by some stranger.
I'm not saying you shouldn't be pissed at this jerk. I'm saying you should be even more pissed at someone else, who maybe you had forgotten to be pissed at.
What makes you think he has no concept of personal space? Nobody ignorant of the concept would have known to do this shit. I, for one, kind of like this asshole.
That "somebody" is you. Both Intel and AMD offer CPUs with integrated graphics that would have blown you away ten years ago. Nvidia makes low-power chipsets too (ION/ION2) to further complicate things. Pick your favorite, from a diverse and competitive market.
Stop buying cards which draw hundreds of Watts, and the problem you're complaining about instantly vanishes. If your machine needs a 500W power supply, you have no one to blame but yourself.
Yeah, I think it's hilarious that people look at a situation where the populace is well employed, as being a good thing, even if they're employed doing something completely useless. Nazi Germany's pre-shooting-war war-buildup was a weakening economy, not a strengthening one. Every time someone spent time and metal to machine a part for an Me109 instead of a toaster, or burned a driver's time and a liter of fuel to transport ammunition instead of kegs of bock, the country became a little more impoverished.
That doesn't help anyone, because it just raises the question: How can I know God believes in me? Telling me "just know" isn't enough; if I had the capacity to accept that kind of dogmatic command, I'd probably already believe in gods.
Take it easy dude. Let's try to remember what this whole thing is for.
For all the bitching about secureboot, all currently known (yes, this can change) x86 machines which come with it, allow the user to turn it off. Remember the last 4 times you bought a new computer and, in fact, did diddle with stuff in the firmware, maybe to at least check the timings on your expensive Mushkin memory or whatever? Well, then, this whole article and the software it describes, isn't about you because you're going to turn off secure boot, making every aspect fo this boot loader irrelevant. You won't care about pressing enter, because you won't have to press enter.
This is for users who won't do that. This is for people who are dumber or lazier than your grandma's ditzy bridge partner, for which we do not expect them to follow any directions or do anything "extra" prior to using their computer. They're not installing headless servers. They're not "picky" except in the sense that they don't want to have to read or understand anything longer than one sentence. They can, and will, press enter.
The people who are opinionated enough to be "pretty fucking pissed" about pressing enter, will also tend to care enough to do what is needed in order to make pressing enter become unnecessary.
If there are any people left who become furious about pressing enter, but also feel entitled enough to refuse to turn off secureboot, but also feel entitled enough to refuse to install some other secureboot loader, those people can and should go fuck themselves. Or they can go buy a Mac. Or they can boot Windows, and (think about it) they will never notice that they're not running Linux. Just lie to them and tell them Windows 8 is Linux, and they will believe you, and the lie will never have any consequences because behind the blank smile they gave you when you lied, they already forgot what you said.
It was all a commercial.
At least this means that if DRM comes to 3D printers, it won't be for at least 20 years.
On the bright side, at least you have a Libertarian congressional candidate. For all the talk of voters blowing off their responsibility, in most races, there are no names on the ballot except those within the status quo parties. This November all I've got to vote for is a president. The rest will be lesser-of-two-evils crap.
Not many people run for office. Sometimes I wonder if things would get better, if just more people were interested in taking these jobs. Do you want to be a Congressman? I sure as hell don't.
Didn't mean to get anyone's panties in a bunch with my usage of that word. I didn't mean "liberal" as in "progressive" or left; I mean liberal as in interpreting it very broadly and loosely. Sort of like "be conservative in what you transmit and liberal in what you accept." That rule of thumb for people trying to conform to interface standards, is not actually saying something political. ;-)
If Congress were getting bitch-slapped for unconstitutional behavior with each election, then it might be worth talking about the limit of their powers. But what I see is that We The People accept whatever they do, decade after decade. We don't act like the constitution means anything to us, so why should they? It is not the law.
It's "interstate commerce" and 99% of voters approve of Congress implementing any idea that they wish to, under that power. If people disagreed with this liberal interpretation, surely some of them would vote against the people who do it. But they don't, so it's the law.
Please remember that Charlie Sheen, Lindsay Lohan, etc are also "worthy" of media attention. It's not like the bar is high. They're nutjobs and so is your sheriff, and it's all fair game for worldwide entertainment, whether the nut represents all spectators or not.
It's just that people expect that kind of shit from drug-addled Hollywood types; that's a sort of baseline of entertainment. Maricopa county took it to the next step, beating Hollywood in two ways:
To recap. Baseline: nut (already attention-worthy, right there). Add: power. Add: elected. Really, you don't understand the attention? No, I think you just regret the attention. ;-)
Killing the lawyer is a crime, so intending to kill the lawyer is relevant when you end up killing the secretary by mistake. You were attempting to commit a crime, and you did.
Fucking your (non-minor) SO is not a crime, nor is inviting your SO to fuck. You were not attempting to commit a crime, but you did.
If there was "transfer of intent" then it should be a transfer of the intent to commit a non-criminal action.
I want to say this in the nicest way possible, because it seems like you're well-intentioned, benevolent and compassionate, but: don't be a coward. Sure, it's true that some fuckwit might punish you for it, but it's also true that a meteorite might fall out of the sky and hit you on the head. Shit happens and life is full of risks, but think about it: risks like this one have their probabilities overblown, and the more realistic risk you face, comes from the fact that you're driving on a snowy road.
On average, chances are you'll end up rotting in your grave due to a driving accident, than rotting in prison because of a false accusation that was justified because you helped some little girl. Really.
Whether the excuse was a manufactured insincere mistake or not, if it happened then I might vote to let the guy go anyway. Go ahead, try to bone a 14-year-old while you're on the phone to your mom trying to explain away the hott texxxt you sent her.
Oh shit, I just realized: there are probably people who are into that.
Probably not.
And assuming you have a magic UI that is both convenient yet also somehow lets people enter keys of sufficient entropy. If the user is entering 4-digit-PINs or stuff like that for a key, then it doesn't matter how excellent the cipher is.
Some people have a hard time wrapping their heads around the idea that religion or the gods within the religion might simply be evil by human standards. If you suggest this, they'll shrug it off saying the God works in mysterious ways and it's not for them to understand it. And yet, they are human and practice that religion. God works in mysterious ways so therefore you must work in mysterious ways too? You must practice what you know to be evil, having faith that in some demented way that human brains can't understand, it's actually secretly good?
Maybe so. Once you open the door to faith, anything is possible. If you can believe in a god without there being any evidence, then why not believe that murder is ok, because some celestial accountant is putting into the "good" column for reasons that no jury would ever accept?